The Iran Crisis Through Competing Worldviews

By Joel Wong

The escalating confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran in 2025–2026 has revived a long-standing debate in international relations: what constitutes strategic success in modern warfare, and whose definition of security ultimately matters. Scholars such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt—both leading voices of realist theory—argue that the current conflict reveals a fundamental mismatch between American objectives and geopolitical realities. Their critique is echoed, though for different reasons, by many voices across the Global South, who view the crisis less as a strategic contest and more as a destabilizing failure of international governance.

The Realist Critique: Wars That Cannot Be Won

Mearsheimer, a leading theorist of offensive realism, contends that the United States has entered a conflict it cannot decisively win. In his framework, the definition of victory in an asymmetric war is simple: the weaker state prevails if it survives. Because the Iranian state remains intact despite sanctions, cyber operations, and repeated air strikes, Iran has already avoided defeat.

The core problem, he argues, lies in the limits of modern military power. Air campaigns can damage infrastructure and military capacity, but they rarely produce regime collapse. To overthrow a government in a country as geographically large and politically cohesive as Iran would require a massive ground invasion—something on the order of hundreds of thousands, if not a million, troops. Given the legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan, such an undertaking is politically impossible for Washington.

Moreover, external attacks tend to strengthen rather than weaken targeted regimes. Nationalist sentiment often triggers a “rally around the flag” effect, consolidating domestic support for the government. In Mearsheimer’s view, the result is a prolonged war of attrition in which the United States expends resources while Iran merely needs to endure.

Another paradox follows from this logic: military pressure may actually accelerate Iran’s nuclear ambitions. If the Iranian leadership believes regime survival is threatened, acquiring a nuclear deterrent becomes the most rational strategic response. Attempts to bomb nuclear facilities may delay progress temporarily but reinforce Tehran’s determination to eventually obtain a bomb.

Walt’s Argument: The Cost of Legitimacy

While Mearsheimer focuses on the mechanical difficulty of winning, Walt emphasizes the political consequences. Drawing on his “balance of threat” theory, Walt argues that states align not merely against power but against perceived aggression. From this perspective, the conflict risks undermining American legitimacy worldwide.

Walt describes the United States increasingly as a “predatory hegemon”—a state willing to initiate military action even when its homeland is not under direct threat. The result, he argues, is strategic backlash. Instead of isolating Iran, the confrontation has pushed Tehran closer to other dissatisfied powers, particularly Russia and China, while making regional states wary of being caught in a wider war.

He also highlights the resilience of political institutions. Even leadership decapitation—such as the killing of senior Iranian figures—does not necessarily destabilize the state. Revolutionary regimes often develop deep bureaucratic and military structures capable of surviving leadership losses. In such circumstances, tactical victories can produce strategic setbacks by eliminating avenues for diplomacy and hardening domestic resolve.
The Hawkish Counterargument

Critics of the realist perspective, particularly within neoconservative circles, see the situation differently. They argue that failing to confront Iran would allow it to dominate the Middle East through missile forces, proxy militias, and eventual nuclear capability. From this viewpoint, military strikes are necessary to restore deterrence and demonstrate that international red lines have meaning.

Some advocates also believe that sustained pressure could weaken Iran’s internal power structure, particularly the Revolutionary Guard, potentially enabling domestic opposition movements. In this interpretation, the conflict is not merely strategic but ideological: the character of the regime matters, and allowing it to consolidate power could destabilize the region for decades.

Liberal internationalists, though generally more cautious about military action, emphasize a different concern: nuclear proliferation. They argue that if Iran successfully acquires nuclear weapons, other regional powers—such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Egypt—may follow, undermining the global non-proliferation regime and accelerating a cascade of nuclearization.

The Global South Perspective

Outside the Western strategic debate, many governments interpret the crisis through a different lens. Countries such as India, Brazil, and Indonesia are less concerned with theoretical debates over deterrence or regime change than with practical consequences: energy prices, supply chains, and the erosion of international law.

For major energy-importing nations, instability around the Strait of Hormuz threatens economic growth and domestic stability. Disruptions to shipping lanes can send oil prices soaring, effectively imposing an economic shock on developing economies far removed from the battlefield.

At the same time, several leaders in the Global South have criticized pre-emptive military strikes as violations of state sovereignty and the UN Charter. From their perspective, the crisis illustrates the fragility of the post-World War II international order and strengthens calls for a more multipolar system in which Western powers no longer dominate global security decisions.

A Conflict Without Clear Victory

Taken together, these perspectives reveal a striking convergence on one point: even among those who support military action, few believe the conflict has a clear or easily achievable end state. Realists see a costly stalemate; hawks see a dangerous but necessary struggle to prevent nuclear proliferation; and much of the developing world sees a destabilizing power struggle imposed upon the global economy.

The deeper question may therefore not be who wins militarily, but whether the international system can absorb the geopolitical and economic shock of a prolonged confrontation. In that sense, the Iran crisis is less a conventional war than a test of endurance—one whose outcome may reshape global perceptions of power, legitimacy, and order.