As the war between Iran, the United States, and Israel intensifies, analysts are divided on how the Islamic Republic will respond if the war is prolonged. Here, I would like to offer two distinct paradigms for understanding what might shape the theocratic state’s behavior during this war. One paradigm is that of ideological resistance and the other of survivalist pragmatism.
The first paradigm emphasizes that Iran, shaped by Shia Islamic ideology, is inherently resistant. By design, the regime is willing to fight to the last man if it feels it has to. It views threats to the nation as existential and demands collective defiance. Today, this worldview is visible in Iran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz and its attacks on bases in neighboring countries through proxies, drones, and missiles.
It has thus far refused to accept defeat, as its military and leadership have been significantly degraded by American and Israeli attacks from the sky and the sea. This defiance amid such heavy and intense damage is driven not only by strategy but, more importantly, by Shia resistance ideology that goes back to Husayn ibn Ali and the battle of Karbala.
The second paradigm views Shia political strategy as survivalist, especially when it is in a weakened position. From this perspective, Iran adapts to ensure its survival, even if that requires compromise or tactical retreat. While Tehran appears unyielding now, internal unrest or strategic setbacks could force it to prioritize control over ideological resistance. However, this remains to be seen.
These paradigms offer a framework to anticipate Iran’s moves. Unlike other regimes, Tehran filters decisions through a theological lens, making its behavior unique and consequential both regionally and internally.
Understanding Iran’s strategic mindset
During the Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War, collective resistance to Saddam Hussein allowed Ruhollah Khomeini to consolidate power and establish the system of Wilayat al-Faqih as the foundation of the theocratic state that is Iran today. Had Khomeini not confronted external threats, it is unlikely that the people would have rallied around him and allowed the Islamic Republic to take root so strongly.
What attracts many of Iran’s proxies to the regime – aside from guns and funding – is also this idea that the Ayatollahs are resisting outside powers who they believe are unjust. They, in fact, frame what they do as a sort of holy duty and are honored to be martyred in this path. This demonstrates how the Ayatollahs utilize Shia resistance ideology to legitimize their rule in Iran and their hegemony across the region.
In line with the resistance paradigm, Iran has stood firm in its decision not to back down and remains defiant by continuing to threaten ships trying to cross the Strait of Hormuz, along with drone, missile, and proxy attacks on American and Israeli bases across the Middle East.
Iran’s unwillingness to de-escalate is grounded in an understanding that de-escalation would not only weaken its military position but also undermine the ideological ethos central to its legitimacy and hegemony in the region.
Once that ideological appeal of resistance is eroded or defeated among its base at home, the regime could see factionalism emerge inside its leadership and forces, opening the door for power vacuums, competing interests, and an end to funding of its proxies across the region.
The coming days will test Tehran’s resolve. The ancient New Year’s celebration of Newroz, a Kurdish and broader Iranian celebration of light overcoming darkness and a symbolic holiday of resistance, is only days away. Knowing this, regime officials have threatened those who might protest or celebrate, but the possibility remains that people, especially in Kurdish regions, will still come out to express their defiance.
Newroz could become a catalyst for internal unrest, challenging the regime’s ability to maintain control and testing whether ideological resistance or survivalist pragmatism will dominate Tehran’s next moves. If the regime cracks down heavily – which they are likely to do – people picking up arms against it could become a serious possibility.
For now, observers and policymakers should bear these two paradigms in mind: resistance versus survival, as they encapsulate the spectrum of possibilities if the war is prolonged.
They provide a lens to anticipate Iran’s behavior, whether in leveraging the Strait of Hormuz, responding to internal dissent, or projecting influence regionally. With Newroz imminent, the regime’s next moves could reveal which paradigm truly guides the Islamic Republic: the defiance that has historically defined it or the pragmatism necessary for its survival.
The writer is a political analyst who focuses on politics, governance, and foreign policy in the Middle East, Iran, and Kurdistan. His articles have appeared in The Washington Times, The Jerusalem Post, Fair Observer, Kurdistan24, Rudaw, and BasNews.