Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
As tensions in the Middle East escalate once more, the latest round of attacks on Iran by the United States and Israel signals a turning point in the West strategic posture. These are not merely regime change operations of the kind seen in past decades. What is unfolding is a broader policy of state decimation a doctrine of engineered collapse, designed to permanently disable the political, military, and economic foundations of non-compliant states.
From Regime Change to State Collapse
The term “regime change” suggests the replacement of one ruling class with another, often through covert or overt external intervention a method deployed by the United States over 90 times since World War II. However, the fate of states such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and now Gaza, points to a far more disturbing trend: the deliberate dismantling of state institutions, permanent destabilization, and social fragmentation.
These are not failed interventions. They are successful executions of a new imperial strategy. Infrastructure is bombed, militias are armed and unleashed, internal divisions are weaponized, and the social contract is torn apart. The objective is not governance, but entropy a vacuum where Western strategic interests can operate unchallenged and local populations become unmoored from political agency.
This echoes what many Neo-Realist scholars have long predicted. According to Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism, the international system is anarchic, lacking a central authority to enforce rules. In such a world, power maximization becomes the only rational strategy for survival. For Washington and Tel Aviv, Iran’s military deterrence, strategic alliances (with Hezbollah, Syria, and Palestinian resistance groups), and independent foreign policy constitute intolerable acts of defiance. As such, its sovereignty must be neutralize.
Strategic Intent and Media Illusions
Public discourse often frames such aggression in moral terms human rights, democracy, nuclear non-proliferation. However, the track record of Western intervention exposes these rationales as post-facto justifications. Despite confirmations by the IAEA and the U.S. Director of National
Intelligence that Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons, the U.S. and Israel moved to decapitate Iran’s air defense systems, target military elite, and strike nuclear and energy installations. The strategic goal is not disarmament, but disintegration.
In a moment of profound geopolitical consequence, many academics and activists especially in the West fail to take a clear position. Instead, they hide behind the false neutrality of “both-sides” criticism. They denounce the contradictions of the Iranian government without analyzing the balance of power, intent, or the likely consequences of a U.S.-led offensive. This theoretical ambivalence functions as a discursive shield for imperial violence, demobilizing public solidarity and stifling the emergence of a unified resistance narrative.
International Law and the Failure of the UN System
Under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the use of force is strictly prohibited, except in self-defense (Article 51) or with explicit Security Council authorization. Moreover, Article 33 outlines a clear framework for peaceful dispute resolution, encouraging negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and legal settlement before recourse to armed conflict.
However, the architecture of international law is only as strong as its enforcement mechanisms-and therein lies the tragedy. The UN Security Council’s permanent members (P5), particularly the United States, hold veto power, allowing them to unilaterally shield themselves and their allies from legal consequences. Thus, while the UN may issue condemnations, its ability to protect sovereign states like Iran from unlawful aggression remains effectively paralyzed.
This structural flaw vindicates the Neo-Realist reading of global politics: the international system lacks a sovereign enforcer, and thus power, not legality, determines outcomes. As John Austin famously asserted, international law often resembles “positive morality” a system of expectations, not obligations.
Yet a Constructivist lens particularly that of Alexander Wendt-reminds us that international norms, identities, and intersubjective meanings also shape state behavior. The selective application of law and human rights by Western powers erodes the normative foundation of the “rules-based order” and undermines any global consensus about justice and legitimacy.
Iran, Resistance, and Strategic Realities
The U.S. is already deeply embedded in this conflict, regardless of official statements to the contrary. With over 70,000 American personnel stationed in Israel and a steady pipeline of intelligence and military support, American involvement is not hypothetical it is operational. The delay in announcing overt intervention is more political theater than strategic indecision.
Iran’s options for response will depend on the extent of the damage inflicted, its remaining deterrent capacity, and the international diplomatic environment. Potential actions include disrupting maritime trade through the Strait of Hormuz, escalating proxy engagements in Iraq and Lebanon, or leveraging diplomatic ties with China and Russia.
“A dismantled Iran wouldn’t be replaced by a liberal democracy it would become another shattered State in the imperial periphery”
For Iranian society, the stakes are existential. A dismantled Iranian state would not be replaced by a democratic utopia, but by chaos. Competing warlords, unregulated militias, and Western-aligned corporations would carve up the country’s resources and political space. Sovereignty-the precondition for any political agency-would evaporate.
The Myth of Detached Critique
To say, “I support the Iranian people but not the Iranian state,” is politically inert. It is a sentiment even Western hawks like Netanyahu have voiced, weaponizing the supposed “will of the people” to justify bombing their infrastructure. In moments of existential crisis, the state becomes the only organ capable of defending its population. The Iranian Armed Forces, whatever their flaws, are currently the only organized structure that can prevent total disintegration.
History shows that it is not protest alone but the strategic cost imposed by resistance that curtails imperial overreach. In every instance where resistance has collapsed be it in Congo, Iraq, or Gaza-imperial violence has proceeded with catastrophic, unrestrained brutality.
Conclusion
Taking a Partisan Stand in a Multipolar World, in an era of American decline and unrestrained militarism, neutrality is not an option. The language of empire today is military, not diplomatic. Its preferred terrain is not stable client states, but fractured societies too disoriented to resist.
To preserve international order, justice, and even the relevance of human rights, we must first defend sovereignty. That begins with recognizing that Iran’s right to self-defense is not a debatable opinion it is an international legal right and a strategic necessity for resisting the expansion of what some now call a “planet of ruins.”
Western intellectuals and decision-makers must firmly oppose aggression, even when its perpetrators are democratic allies, if they genuinely care about peace, dignity, and the future of international law. No state is flawless, including Iran. However, destroying it won’t advance history. By removing the very prerequisites for justice, stability, and regional self-determination, it will only serve to widen the chasm. Whoever violated sovereignty when it mattered will be remembered by history.
