— Dr. Tirunahari Seshu
When Israel, with American support, launched strikes against Iran on February 28, few expected what followed. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and dozens of other senior figures were killed in the opening days of the campaign. Yet defying every prediction, Iran fought on for 39 days — and in doing so, managed to manoeuvre the United States into a position from which it could not extract itself with dignity. Donald Trump, who had confidently declared the war would be over in four or five weeks, found himself searching for an honourable exit. From the outset, Iran had maintained a consistent position: this was not a war it had chosen or started; it was a war imposed upon it, and therefore those who began it must end it.
The world has weathered serious conflicts before — the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf War triggered by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait — and recovered. But this confrontation was different in scale and consequence. The joint Israeli-American strikes on Iran, combined with Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, produced 39 days of war whose effects rippled across the global economy. Crude oil prices surged past $100 per barrel. The pressure on Washington to stop the fighting became irresistible. With Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan and China acting as mediators, Trump announced a two-week ceasefire on February 8. Iran responded by placing ten proposals before the United States and signalling its acceptance of the framework. That, at least, must be considered the first real step toward a resolution.
Iran's Strategy and Its Audacity
When the ruler of the world's most powerful nation thundered that Iran would be reduced to rubble, sent back to the Stone Age, its civilisation destroyed — all within 48 hours of opening the Strait of Hormuz — Iran did not flinch. That defiance, that combination of strategic calculation and raw patriotism, is what ultimately forced the superpower to retreat.
The opening day of the war was catastrophic for Iranian leadership. Khamenei and 38 other senior figures were killed. Thereafter, roughly one key leader fell every day across 39 days of fighting. Yet rather than collapsing, Iran drew on the decentralised command structure it had built since 2005 under the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — a mosaic system designed to function even as its nodes were destroyed. Iran not only absorbed the assault; it fought back in ways that revealed a genuinely new military doctrine.
While Israel and America launched thousands of missiles and sorties in an attempt to break Iran, Iran responded with what it had: limited but carefully deployed resources. Cheap drones and precision missiles were used for counter-strikes. Oil refineries in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Yemen were targeted. Most consequentially, the Strait of Hormuz was closed — cutting off one of the world's most critical energy chokepoints and triggering oil and gas shortages across South Asia and beyond. Global pressure on Washington to halt the war mounted rapidly.
Iran's masterstroke was using the Strait of Hormuz not merely as a weapon but as a shield. By making the world's energy security contingent on the outcome of the war, Iran transformed a military confrontation into a global economic crisis — and in doing so, shifted the diplomatic leverage decisively in its favour.
Even Trump's most extreme threats did not produce surrender. Iran's President Pezeshkian went further than defiance: he publicly declared that 140 million Iranians stood ready to sacrifice their lives. When Trump threatened to strike power stations, bridges and civilian infrastructure, Iranian civilians formed human chains around those very facilities, daring the strikes to come. It was in this context — facing a population that had effectively made itself a shield — that Trump had no choice but to announce the two-week ceasefire on February 8.
Iran's courage and patriotism under these conditions drew expressions of admiration from across the world.
What an American Victory Would Have Meant
Had America prevailed — had a compliant, American-installed government taken power in Tehran — the consequences for the global order would have been profound. American dominance would have expanded dramatically. But Iran's refusal to be broken has poured cold water on Trump's ambitions and his arrogance alike.
The strategic logic behind the attack was not difficult to read. The United States already maintains numerous military bases across the Persian Gulf. Bringing Iran under its control would have handed Washington dominance over the region's vast oil reserves. Combined with the earlier effective seizure of Venezuela, this would have given America control over two of the world's largest hydrocarbon producers — precisely the countries that supply crude oil to China and India. The goal appears to have been to use energy leverage to discipline Beijing, New Delhi and Moscow simultaneously: starve China and India of oil imports, weaken Russia's grip on global energy markets, and reassert American primacy across every major power centre.
The Cuba analogy is instructive. After Venezuela fell under American influence, Cuba — already oil-dependent — found itself plunged into darkness and scarcity. A similar fate awaited any nation that relied on Venezuelan or Iranian oil and found both sources closed. Trump's calculation, it seems, was that controlling these energy arteries would allow him to bring China, India and Russia to heel without firing a shot at any of them directly.
That strategy has now stumbled badly.
The Road Ahead: Fragile Hopes for Peace
Even with the ceasefire in place, serious doubts remain about how the negotiations will unfold. Iran has laid ten proposals before the United States. Whether Washington will accept them — or even engage with them seriously — is an open question.
The diplomatic talks that began in Islamabad on February 11 are already shadowed by parallel violence. Israeli Defence Forces have continued strikes on Hezbollah positions in Lebanon, and Hezbollah chief Naim Qassim has been killed. Whether these actions will torpedo the peace process is a question that hangs over every round of talks.
One issue in particular has the potential to deadlock the negotiations entirely: Iran will insist on retaining control of the Strait of Hormuz. If the United States refuses to accept this, the talks will stall. Both sides must resist the temptation to dig in on maximalist positions and instead pursue negotiations in a spirit of genuine goodwill.
This war does not belong only to Trump, or to Benjamin Netanyahu, or to Iran's IRGC. Its consequences fall on all of humanity. A war that has already acted as an axe to the roots of global progress must be brought to an end. For the sake of the world's peoples, both nations must find a path to mutual agreement and stop the fighting.
Let us hope they do.
— Dr. Tirunahari Seshu Contact: 9885465877
Comments
Post a Comment