Iran, the underdog — and the argument for its success

I want Iran to win. What does “win” mean? Iran defines it in the following way: the United States must lift its decades-old sanctions; it must dismantle its military bases in the Arab states; Israel must end its occupation of Lebanon; and Iran must be compensated for the damage it has suffered over the years and in this war. Though more than a thousand Iranis have already died in American and Israeli bombardment, and more may die, securing these outcomes would amount, in Iran’s view, to total victory.

Why do I want Iran to win? At the most basic level, it is the underdog in a confrontation with two nuclear-armed opponents, Israel and the United States. It is militarily weaker, yes, but not feeble, as the world has witnessed since 28 February. It has shown a level of resolve that many other states might not. Another instinctive reason for supporting Iran is that it is, like us, a nation that feels it has been trampled on by what is called the West. I feel solidarity with it for this reason.

At a deeper level, I see Israel and the United States as colonising powers imposing themselves brutally on a region that does not want them. Their actions, therefore, should be resisted. American sanctions on Iran isolate it from the global banking system, making trade with the world difficult. They are designed not only to weaken the Iranian state but also to keep ordinary Iranis poor.

These are not United Nations sanctions but unilateral measures imposed by the United States, which uses its economic weight to pressure countries it dislikes, including Venezuela and Cuba. Iran’s demand that such sanctions be lifted is therefore just; for that to happen, Iran must prevail.

The United States maintains military bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, the UAE, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Why does it need such an extensive presence of soldiers and weaponry in the region? In practice, the United States runs an empire in all but name. Its military should not threaten the world but focus on its own homeland. Iran, through this conflict, has begun forcing that conversation.

Israel today resembles what South Africa was 40 years ago, but arguably worse. It is described by many human rights organisations — including some within Israel itself — as an apartheid state, controlling millions of people who have neither vote nor equal rights. It has used overwhelming military power, backed by extensive American funding and arms, to dominate West Asia. An Iranian victory, in this argument, could help change that dynamic.

Iran has suffered economic losses estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars over the years because of sanctions, and it has been further harmed by this war. In this view, Iran is entitled to compensation from the United States and its allies. These are the reasons I want Iran to win.

Why do I think such an outcome is possible, perhaps even likely? Because Iran appears to retain significant leverage in the conflict. The United States and Israel can inflict devastating punishment, and they have done so, targeting infrastructure and killing civilians. They have assassinated Iranian leaders and may attempt to eliminate more. Yet the primary objective of regime change has not been achieved. The Islamic Republic remains intact.

Iran’s response has been narrow but strategic: it has sought to disrupt the movement of oil, gas and other supplies through key maritime routes in West Asia. Its influence over these waters rests both on the force it can deploy and on the threat of force, which has deterred commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, Iran’s own oil exports continue. It also retains the capacity to target American bases and the countries hosting them.

These factors matter because control over energy flows affects the global economy. As long as US President Donald Trump cannot guarantee safe passage for shipping in and out of the Persian Gulf, the price of crude oil and gas will likely continue to rise, as has already happened since the conflict began. Consumers in the United States are paying more for petrol and diesel, and costs will likely rise further if the war continues. Unfortunately, the global economy is also exposed to these pressures.

So far, much of the world has not openly pressed the United States and Israel to end the conflict. One explanation is that many countries fear confronting them directly. That imbalance of power is another reason I want Iran to win.

From this point, the United States would need to take significant steps to alter the trajectory of the conflict, which currently appears to favour Iran’s strategic aims. Military escalation alone has not delivered regime change. A negotiated compromise — one that includes guarantees against future attacks and the lifting of sanctions — may be the most realistic path to ending the violence.

I want Iran to win. For that to happen, the United States does not necessarily have to lose. It only has to choose a different course.