The Politics of Perpetual Conflict: Iran, America and the Crisis of a Fragmented Order

Baba Yunus Muhammad

For much of the modern era, wars in the Middle East have been interpreted through a familiar lens: Washington acts, regional powers react, and smaller nations endure the consequences. But the latest tensions surrounding Iran reveal a more complicated reality. Conflict is not sustained merely by military calculations or ideological hostility. It is often nourished by competing domestic interests, rival political visions and deeply entrenched structures of power.

The recent funeral ceremonies following the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were intended to project national unity and resilience. Millions gathered in mourning, while state institutions carefully choreographed displays of solidarity. Yet beneath the symbolism lay unmistakable signs of division. In scenes that shocked many Iranians, hard-line activists physically confronted senior government officials who had publicly defended the cease-fire with the United States.

President Masoud Pezeshkian was reportedly jostled and insulted by crowds accusing him of capitulation. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi faced even more direct hostility, pursued and assaulted by demonstrators who denounced negotiations as betrayal. Such incidents were not isolated outbursts of anger. They reflected a widening struggle over Iran’s political future.

At stake is a fundamental disagreement about the nature of power in the twenty-first century. One camp argues that Iran’s survival and prosperity depend upon reducing tensions with the West, reopening economic channels and ending the cycle of confrontation that has impoverished ordinary citizens. The opposing camp insists that accommodation with Washington is both naïve and dangerous, believing that America’s ultimate objective remains the strategic weakening of Iran and the dismantling of its regional influence.

This debate cannot be understood apart from the broader crisis of the contemporary international order. The dominant Western narrative frequently presents sanctions, military pressure and diplomatic isolation as instruments of peace. Yet for countries like Iran, these mechanisms are often experienced as forms of economic warfare designed to enforce geopolitical obedience.

From Tehran’s perspective, recent developments have reinforced the arguments of the hard-liners. The memorandum of understanding signed between Washington and Tehran has not generated confidence among those who have long distrusted American intentions. To them, diplomacy appears less as a pathway toward reconciliation and more as an interval during which the balance of power is being quietly reshaped.

Several developments have strengthened this perception. American support for arrangements intended to curtail the military influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon has been interpreted in Tehran as an effort to weaken one of Iran’s principal regional alliances. Restrictions on the release of frozen Iranian assets have remained largely intact, despite promises of de-escalation. Meanwhile, commercial shipping patterns through the Strait of Hormuz have become another arena of contestation, with Washington encouraging alternative maritime routes that reduce Tehran’s leverage over one of the world’s most strategic waterways.

For Iran’s hard-line establishment, these are not disconnected events. They are seen as elements of a coherent strategy aimed at diminishing Iran’s capacity to negotiate from a position of strength. Their conclusion is simple: peace without power is surrender.

The Strait of Hormuz occupies a central place in this calculation. Stretching across a narrow corridor between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula, the waterway remains one of the arteries of the global economy. A substantial portion of the world’s energy supplies passes through its waters. For decades, successive Iranian governments have regarded control over Hormuz as an indispensable strategic asset — perhaps the country’s most effective means of deterring external aggression.

Western policymakers frequently condemn Tehran’s use of the strait as coercive diplomacy. Yet this criticism reveals a deeper contradiction within the architecture of global power. The same international system that tolerates military alliances, overseas bases and economic sanctions as legitimate instruments of influence often rejects similar forms of leverage when employed by states outside the Western orbit.

The resulting asymmetry has fuelled resentment not only in Iran but across much of the Global South. Nations that endured colonial domination increasingly question an international order in which rules appear universal in language but selective in application. Iran’s confrontation with the United States thus resonates far beyond the Gulf. It forms part of a larger contest over sovereignty, legitimacy and the distribution of power in a rapidly changing world.

Complicating matters further is the profound uncertainty surrounding Iran’s internal political transition. The death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has left a vacuum that cannot easily be filled. Although Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei has emerged as the apparent successor, his path to authority remains fraught with challenges. Reports that he sustained injuries during attacks that claimed members of his family have contributed to his prolonged absence from public life, allowing opponents to question both his independence and his capacity to govern.

History teaches that moments of succession often become moments of vulnerability. Institutions that appear monolithic from the outside frequently reveal hidden fractures once a dominant figure disappears. Iran is no exception. Competing factions are now attempting to shape not only the country’s foreign policy but the very character of the Islamic Republic in the post-Khamenei era.

For reformists and pragmatists, engagement with the outside world offers the possibility of economic recovery and political stability. For hard-liners, compromise risks eroding the ideological foundations upon which the state was built. Between these positions lies an exhausted population burdened by inflation, unemployment and decades of geopolitical isolation.

Yet it would be a mistake to reduce this struggle to a simple contest between moderates and extremists. Political minorities often wield disproportionate influence, particularly in societies defined by security concerns and external threats. As pressure from Washington intensifies, advocates of confrontation gain a powerful argument: that resistance, however costly, remains preferable to dependence.

This dynamic is hardly unique to Iran. Across the world, societies subjected to external coercion frequently experience an internal strengthening of nationalist and hard-line currents. Economic sanctions intended to weaken governments often end up consolidating their authority. Military threats designed to compel moderation can instead empower those who thrive on confrontation.

The tragedy of the present moment lies in the self-reinforcing logic of escalation. American pressure encourages Iranian resistance; Iranian resistance justifies further American pressure. Diplomatic openings are repeatedly consumed by mutual suspicion. Each side interprets the other’s gestures through the lens of past betrayals, creating a cycle in which peace becomes politically hazardous and war increasingly normalised.

The deeper lesson extends beyond Tehran and Washington. The modern world remains trapped within a geopolitical framework that rewards domination over cooperation and military leverage over genuine dialogue. Great powers continue to imagine that stability can be imposed through force, while weaker nations cling to whatever instruments of influence remain available to them.

For the peoples of the Muslim world, the challenge is not merely to choose between East and West, America and Iran, resistance and accommodation. It is to articulate a political and moral vision capable of transcending the structures of dependency that have defined international relations for generations.

Whether the current cease-fire survives will depend not only on decisions made in the White House or in Tehran, but on whether humanity can imagine a global order founded upon justice rather than coercion. Until then, peace will remain fragile, and the temptation of perpetual conflict will continue to haunt both nations and empires alike.

Baba Yunus Muhammad is the President of the Africa Islamic Economic Forum (AFRIEF) and a leading intellectual, writer and policy advocate specializing in Islamic economics, governance, and ethical development. His work focuses on the intersection of political authority, economic justice, and civilizational thought in Africa and the Muslim world.