The War That Changed the Iran Question
by Siyavash Shahabi*
The war against Iran was supposed to simplify the problem: military pressure, Tehran’s retreat, negotiations from a position of weakness, and perhaps even regime change. But war rarely obeys the fantasies of those who launch it. Instead of simplifying the Iran question, it has changed it.
Iran after the war is not the same Iran as before. The United States is not the same controlling power it imagined itself to be. The Strait of Hormuz has moved from being a geopolitical chokepoint to becoming a central bargaining instrument. Distrust is no longer just rhetoric in Tehran; it has become part of the structure of decision-making. And the Islamic Republic, wounded by foreign attack, has also used the atmosphere of war to rebuild and intensify its internal security logic.






The United States has grown wary of long term occupations. Abandoning the pretence of exporting democracy, the Trump administration has chosen to force existing powers to comply with its rule.





As Israel ticks off its list of Nazi-like atrocities against the Palestinians, including mass starvation, it prepares for yet another – the demolition of
Most of the recent electoral rounds in Western countries (lately in Norway and Germany) have yielded worrying results that confirm the rise of racist far-right forces. This buttresses the characterization of the era we live in as one comparable to the fascistic era between the two world wars of the past century, but in a new guise claiming to respect the democratic form of government, among other new features. Hence the labelling of these forces as neofascist (see “The Age of Neofascism and Its Distinctive Features”, 4 February 2025).