A Desperate Iran

Amplify
Written By Al Fusaic

By Ruhama Bekele

INTRO

In ancient Greek mythology, the nine-headed Hydra was a ferocious, venomous water serpent that frequently terrorized the countryside of Lerna. As the legend goes, Hercules was ordered to kill the beast but struggled after finding out that upon decapitating one head, two emerged to take its place. Similarly, Iran’s hydra-like sectarian networks across the South West Asia and North Africa (SWANA) region have eroded political institutions, undermined self-determination, and fueled instability in fragile states. Just as Hercules faced a relentless foe that regenerated with each strike, efforts to counter Iran’s influence have diminished some of its capabilities but have not yet dismantled its regime.

The past year, however, has seen massive blows to the strength of Iran’s “axis of resistance”. The Islamic Republic’s allies and proxies- including the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza--have been severely weakened or toppled altogether. Still, other groups, such as the Houthis in Yemen and the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, remain active and continue to advance Tehran’s regional interests. In the myth, Hercules eventually defeated the beast by cauterizing the hydra’s necks with a torch, thus preventing new heads from growing. Thus, the question becomes, can the United States cauterize the Iran-shaped wounds of the SWANA region?

Carrots but Mostly Sticks

Sanctions are traditionally used as a tool of coercive diplomacy, where economic pressure (the “stick”) is paired with the promise of relief (the “carrot”) to guide specific behavioral changes in targeted states. In recent weeks, however, the Trump administration has reignited an aggressive approach, characterized by the "maximum pressure" campaign, to isolate Iran and undermine its regional influence. Through sanctions, military pressure, and an attempt to forcefully impose a nuclear deal with Iran, the administration seeks to weaken Tehran’s ability to fund its proxies and prevent the state from creating nuclear weapons. However, instead of offering a clear path toward relief in exchange for compliance, U.S. sanctions have become an instrument of punishment untethered from any broader diplomatic strategy.

 While potentially successful in limiting Iran’s capability given its current vulnerability, the approach may only further destabilize the region and push Tehran to deepen its alliances with U.S. adversaries. Rather than weakening Iran’s influence in the region, it risks accelerating Iran’s nuclear program as a means of deterrence. In order to assess the efficacy of Trump’s maximum pressure campaign, one must understand the history of sanctions placed on Iran and its current application in accordance with U.S. strategic goals in the region.

From Revolution to Retribution

The first major sanctions on Iran were imposed in 1979 when the U.S. froze $12 billion in Iranian assets following the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis. The U.S. government took this action in response to the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran and the holding of 52 American diplomats and citizens hostage by Iranian students. At the same time, concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions resurfaced, and in 1984, the U.S. designated Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism for its connections with Hezbollah. The designation triggered sweeping sanctions that include restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance and a ban on arms transfers. As relations between the two states worsened over the next 20 years, the U.S. expanded its sanctions on Iran to economically isolate the Islamic Republic.

In 2005, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found that Iran was violating its nuclear nonproliferation obligations through its uranium enrichment program. In response, the U.S. led international efforts to further isolate Tehran through sanctions on oil exports. After 10 years of comprehensive international sanctions, Iran agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The JCPOA was an agreement between Iran and the international community, particularly the P5+1, that aimed to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program and allow for more comprehensive inspections of its facilities by the IAEA in exchange for lifting billions of dollars worth of sanctions.

However, critics, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia, argued that the sanctions relief the JCPOA provided Tehran enabled the Islamic Republic to fund its proxies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. As such, President Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2018 and reimposed comprehensive sanctions as part of his maximum pressure campaign on Iran. The plan was to cripple Iran’s economy and deprive the regime from funding its proxies while also preventing the state from developing nuclear weapons. Although Trump's approach during his first administration achieved some successes, the Islamic Republic's decades of experience in evading sanctions enabled it to not only continue its operations but also export its model to other sanctioned states like Russia. Further, Tehran has scrapped JCPOA controls on its uranium enrichment program, drastically increasing its uranium enrichment. Today, Iran “might be able to enrich enough uranium for five fission weapons within about one week and enough for eight weapons in less than two weeks”.

Escalation Without Endgame

The instability of the SWANA region in the past year and a half has created very dangerous calculations by key players. Israel’s actions, particularly the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and the strike on an Iranian consulate in Syria, have highlighted Iran's lack of deterrence capabilities. Looking to capitalize on its massive gains following the toppling of Assad, crippling of Hamas and Hezbollah, and U.S. strikes on the Houthis in Yemen, Israel may decide to preemptively strike Iranian nuclear facilities. The likelihood of this occurring is high, particularly with the recent deployment of American B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia, a British air base in the Indian Ocean. These actions by President Trump were taken following Iran’s refusal to enter into a new nuclear deal with the U.S. as Tehran “now sees negotiations with the US as a de facto capitulation to Trump’s resumed maximum pressure policy”.

Instead, Iran has doubled down as its “total enriched uranium inventory is now roughly 40 times the limit it agreed to under the JCPOA”. Additionally, top Iranian military commanders have been considering preemptively striking Diego Garcia in preparation of an all-out war. Even more concerning, Trump’s aggressive foreign policy has driven China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea closer together, as evidenced by Russia’s warning to the U.S. over bombing Iran and joint Chinese-Iranian naval drills in the Indian Ocean. Finally, Iran’s lack of deterrence capabilities may push the state to pursue nuclear deterrence, increasing the likelihood of an all-out war with the United States.

War-Time Consigliere or Clueless Commander?

Iran is many things, but not stupid. The Islamic Republic’s “strategic patience” in its approach to foreign policy has proven highly effective, allowing it to expand its influence in the region with minimal cost. In contrast, U.S. involvement in the SWANA region has come with significant political and diplomatic costs, both domestically and internationally. Even before Hamas’s attack on October 7th, Iran had been able to capitalize on U.S. blunders in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Tehran’s twisted sense of “moral superiority”, simply because of its opposition to Zionism and American imperialism, has garnered significant support, helping to strengthen its influence and solidify its worldview in the region. Furthermore, sanctions can often backfire, as restricting a state's access to assets may reinforce the regime's power by strengthening patronage networks rather than weakening or dismantling it.

 Taking these factors into consideration, along with the deeply unpopular nature of wars, the United States is playing a dangerous and irresponsible game of brinkmanship. Whereas the U.S. views the deployment of warplanes as a means to pressure Iran into negotiations, Iran perceives this as an existential threat to its regime. This escalation is especially concerning in light of Iran’s growing capabilities in cyber attacks, paired with the recent Signal chat and Gmail security breaches. Given that these breaches are directly tied to rising tensions with Iran, it’s clear that neither Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth nor National Security Adviser Mike Waltz inspires confidence as wartime consiglieres. The recent scandals and the administration’s inconsistent messaging only deepen the uncertainty. Without steady, informed leadership, the U.S. risks blundering into a conflict it cannot control, much less contain.

Conclusion: Cauterizing the Wound or Feeding the Beast?

Although very different, the 2003 American Invasion of Iraq has significant lessons the United States needs to consider when dealing with Iran. For instance, while the U.S. was successful in toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime, it didn’t consider what would come after the dictator. Although Trump has not explicitly pursued regime change in Iran, the Islamic Republic perceives U.S. demands as an existential threat- akin to “national annihilation”. As such, Trump’s confrontation with a desperate Iran presents many risks to not only the region but international security at a time when U.S. allies have distanced themselves from American policies.

 So, what should the U.S. do? Rather than relying on military force, the U.S. must target the roots of Iran’s strength: its powerful narrative and its illicit networks. The Islamic Republic has skillfully framed its confrontation with the U.S. as a battle between the “evil Zionist West” and the “holy Islamic East,” positioning itself not just as a state but as a righteous cause. This narrative resonates across the region, particularly when reinforced by the lasting consequences of U.S. interventions in Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Palestine.

To counter this narrative, the U.S. must fundamentally shift its strategy, focusing on diplomatic engagement rather than military confrontation. This shift should involve concrete measures, such as addressing corruption and the drug trade in Syria and Lebanon, which serve as political and financial lifelines for Iran’s allies. Additionally, critically engaging with Palestine must be a priority as sympathy for the Palestinian cause continues to legitimize Iran’s influence in the region, often positioning the Islamic Republic as the champion of Palestinian rights against perceived Western imperialism. Further, the U.S. should leverage foreign aid to develop the civil, political, and physical infrastructures of fragile states in the region to provide sustainable alternatives to Iran-backed governance. That being said, Trump’s potential use of military force will not only be counterproductive but also further entrench Iran’s narrative of victimhood and resistance, allowing it to rally more support for its cause and deepen regional instability.

Hercules struggled to defeat the Hydra by striking at its many heads without a plan for what followed. Similarly, the U.S. must realize that military strikes alone will not solve the multifaceted challenges posed by Iran. The Trump administration’s unilateral approach will not cauterize the wounds of the SWANA region. Without coordination with allies- its modern-day Iolaus- the U.S. risks fanning the flames rather than containing them. In this scenario, there is no Hercules, only an ever-regenerating Hydra, each strike deepening the turmoil and prolonging instability.

Sources

Al Fusaic
Next

The Dawn of a New SWANA Region