Reflections on the American-Israeli War on the Mullahs of Iran

Longue Durée Conflict, Nuclear Sovereignty, Political Theology, and the Reconfiguration of Middle Eastern Order

 Introduction: From Crisis to Historical Structure

The American–Israeli war against the Islamic Republic of Iran represents the crystallization of more than four decades of ideological antagonism, strategic rivalry, nuclear brinkmanship, and shifting regional alliances. Often reduced to a confrontation with Iran’s clerical leadership, the conflict in fact embodies structural tensions rooted in the 1979 Revolution, Israeli security doctrine, American hegemony, and the transformation of global power. This paper adopts a longue durée framework to situate the present escalation within deeper historical continuities. By integrating geopolitical analysis, political theology, international law, and regional political economy, it argues that the war is less a discrete military episode than a manifestation of competing visions of sovereignty and order in a transitioning multipolar system. The struggle over Iran’s nuclear ambitions becomes a proxy for broader contestations over legitimacy, deterrence, and regional hierarchy.

The unfolding American–Israeli confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran marks one of the most consequential geopolitical ruptures of the early twenty-first century. What is often described in popular discourse as a “war on the mullahs” is in fact the culmination of decades of ideological hostility, proxy conflict, nuclear brinkmanship, and competing visions of regional order. The Islamic Republic, born of the 1979 Revolution, has long positioned itself as a revolutionary, anti-Western force committed to resisting American hegemony and opposing Israel’s legitimacy. Conversely, the United States and Israel have perceived Iran’s regional expansionism and nuclear ambitions as existential threats to regional stability and, in Israel’s case, to national survival.

The most recent military escalations—direct strikes, cyberwarfare, covert assassinations, and proxy engagements—cannot be understood outside a broader historical and structural framework. One must adopt a longue durée perspective to situate the present war within the deeper arc of U.S.–Iranian estrangement, Israeli strategic doctrine, and the transformation of Middle Eastern geopolitics. Combining academic analysis with journalistic immediacy, it reflects on the causes, conduct, implications, and potential futures of the American–Israeli war on Iran’s clerical regime.

The language of immediacy often obscures structural continuity. Headlines frame the American–Israeli confrontation with Iran as a response to nuclear enrichment thresholds, proxy aggression, or missile capabilities. Yet such triggers operate within a deeper architecture of antagonism shaped by ideological revolution, strategic realignment, and the erosion of unipolar global order.

The phrase “war on the mullahs” personalizes the conflict, implying a campaign against clerical leadership. However, the Islamic Republic is not merely a clerical elite but a hybrid ideological state in which religious legitimacy, national sovereignty, and revolutionary identity converge. To confront the regime is to confront a political theology institutionalized within state apparatus.

The American–Israeli war on the Islamic Republic of Iran is neither episodic nor accidental. It is the crystallization of four and a half decades of ideological antagonism, structural rivalry, nuclear anxiety, and regional power competition. To understand the present confrontation merely as a reaction to nuclear enrichment or proxy attacks is to misread its deeper historical architecture. The conflict represents an accumulation of unresolved tensions stretching from the 1979 Iranian Revolution to the post–Cold War unipolar moment, the failed promise of nuclear diplomacy, and the present transition toward multipolarity.

This article argues that the war must be read across three interlocking temporalities:

1. Revolutionary time — beginning in 1979, when the Islamic Republic redefined Iranian identity.
2. Nuclear time — emerging from post–Cold War proliferation anxieties.
3. Systemic time — marked by the decline of American unipolarity and rise of multipolar contestation.

Only through this layered approach can we grasp the strategic and symbolic stakes of the conflict.

The Historical Foundations of Hostility

The rupture between the United States and Iran began with the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. The Islamic Revolution, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, replaced a pro-Western monarchy with a theocratic republic grounded in velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the jurist). The U.S. embassy hostage crisis symbolized the new regime’s hostility toward American influence, transforming Iran from ally to adversary overnight.

For Israel, the revolution was equally transformative. Under the Shah, Iran had been part of Israel’s “periphery doctrine”—a strategic alignment with non-Arab regional actors. After 1979, Tehran declared Israel illegitimate and framed its foreign policy around resistance to Zionism. The rhetorical and ideological antagonism hardened into strategic confrontation.

During the 1980–1988 Iran–Iraq War, the United States tilted toward Iraq, perceiving revolutionary Iran as the greater threat. Yet paradoxically, the Iran-Contra affair revealed the complexities of realpolitik: Washington covertly supplied arms to Tehran while publicly opposing it. This period entrenched mistrust while demonstrating that strategic calculations could override ideological rhetoric.

From the 1990s onward, Iran expanded its regional influence through non-state actors: Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine, and later the Houthis in Yemen. This “Axis of Resistance” became Tehran’s primary instrument of asymmetric power projection.

Israel viewed Hezbollah’s missile arsenal and Iran’s entrenchment in Syria as red lines. The 2006 Lebanon War and repeated Israeli strikes in Syria marked an undeclared shadow war. Meanwhile, the United States grappled with Iranian influence in post-2003 Iraq, where Tehran wielded substantial leverage over Shi’a militias and political actors.

Israel’s strategic calculus shifted equally dramatically. Under the Shah, Iran had quietly participated in Israel’s “periphery doctrine,” aligning with non-Arab states to counterbalance Arab hostility. After 1979, Iran transformed from tacit partner to existential adversary, adopting an ideological position that denied Israel’s legitimacy. The anti-Zionist posture became central to Iran’s regional projection, embedding confrontation within theological narrative.

The 1979 Revolution: Political Theology as Geopolitical Rupture

The Iranian Revolution was not merely regime change; it was a redefinition of sovereignty. By institutionalizing velayat-e faqih, Ayatollah Khomeini fused divine guardianship with republican institutions. The state’s legitimacy derived from sacred jurisprudence, rendering opposition not only political but theological.

For the United States, the loss of the Shah dismantled a cornerstone of Cold War containment strategy. For Israel, it eliminated a discreet strategic partner and replaced it with an ideologically committed adversary. Tehran’s immediate adoption of anti-Zionism as foreign policy principle embedded Israel into the Islamic Republic’s revolutionary narrative.

The U.S. embassy hostage crisis entrenched antagonism in symbolic form. It framed the United States as imperial aggressor and Iran as revolutionary resistor. The rupture became constitutive identity.

Thus, hostility was not circumstantial but structural from inception.

The Iran–Iraq War: Militarization of the Revolutionary State

The eight-year Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988) transformed revolutionary fervor into institutionalized militarization. Massive casualties, economic devastation, and perceived international isolation consolidated regime resilience. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) emerged as parallel military-economic complex, embedding itself into governance and foreign policy.

The war validated asymmetric doctrine. Unable to match conventional parity with regional adversaries, Iran developed proxy networks and missile capabilities. The seeds of later regional projection were planted in wartime improvisation.

For Washington and Jerusalem, Iran’s endurance reinforced the perception of ideological rigidity. The conflict entrenched mutual suspicion, embedding militarization within identity.

The Architecture of Proxy Power

Iran’s postwar strategy pivoted toward indirect projection. Hezbollah became the most sophisticated manifestation of this doctrine. Combining political legitimacy, social services, and military capability, Hezbollah functioned as deterrent arm against Israel.

In Iraq, post-2003 power vacuums allowed Iranian-backed militias to shape political outcomes. In Syria, Tehran’s intervention preserved Bashar al-Assad, securing corridor access to Lebanon. In Yemen, Houthi insurgency expanded Iran’s strategic depth.

This web of influence formed what Iranian officials term the “Axis of Resistance.” For Israel and the United States, it represented encirclement.

The shadow war intensified: Israeli airstrikes targeted Syrian supply lines; cyberattacks sabotaged enrichment facilities; covert operations assassinated nuclear scientists. Conflict persisted in liminal space—neither peace nor declared war.

Nuclear Sovereignty and Existential Anxiety

The nuclear file transformed rivalry into existential dilemma.

For Iran, nuclear capability symbolizes scientific achievement, deterrence insurance, and sovereignty assertion. The regime insists enrichment rights fall under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). For domestic audiences, technological advancement reinforces national pride beyond ideological divides.

For Israel, however, even latent capability constitutes unacceptable risk. Israeli strategic culture, shaped by historical trauma, privileges preemption. The 1981 Osirak strike and 2007 Al-Kibar bombing illustrate doctrine continuity.

The 2015 JCPOA temporarily reconciled these positions through inspection regimes and enrichment caps. Yet its fragility reflected deep mistrust. Israeli leadership viewed sunset clauses as deferred danger; Iranian hardliners perceived intrusive inspections as humiliation.

The U.S. withdrawal in 2018 reignited escalation. Sanctions devastated Iranian economy; Tehran resumed advanced centrifuge deployment. Nuclear time accelerated.

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) represented a high-water mark of diplomatic engagement. It imposed constraints on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Israel, however, viewed the deal as insufficient, arguing it delayed rather than dismantled Iran’s path to nuclear capability.

The U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 under President Donald Trump and the subsequent “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign fundamentally altered the trajectory of the conflict. Iran resumed enrichment activities beyond agreed limits, and tensions escalated dramatically.

The 2020 U.S. drone strike that killed General Qassem Soleimani marked a new phase of overt confrontation. Israel, for its part, allegedly conducted cyberattacks and targeted assassinations against Iranian nuclear scientists. The nuclear issue became intertwined with direct military risk.

Maximum Pressure and Strategic Compression

The “maximum pressure” campaign sought behavioral change through economic strangulation. Oil exports plummeted; inflation surged; currency devalued. Yet rather than capitulation, Tehran adopted calibrated defiance—incremental enrichment increases paired with rhetorical restraint.

Strategic compression ensued. As breakout timelines shortened, Israeli threat perception intensified. American policymakers faced narrowing diplomatic bandwidth.

Meanwhile, regional normalization agreements between Israel and Gulf states reconfigured alliances. Shared anxiety over Iranian expansion eclipsed historical Arab–Israeli hostility. Tehran interpreted these developments as coordinated containment.

The result was cumulative escalation culminating in open confrontation.

Multipolarity and Great-Power Entanglement

The war unfolds amid systemic transition. Russia and China expand economic and diplomatic engagement with Tehran. Beijing’s energy needs and Moscow’s anti-Western posture incentivize alignment.

European states advocate de-escalation yet lack leverage. The conflict thus becomes theater within broader contestation between liberal internationalism and emergent multipolar blocs.

Iran leverages great-power competition to mitigate isolation; Israel leverages strategic partnership with Washington to sustain deterrence. The war’s regional dimension cannot be disentangled from global reordering.

The Regional Domino Effect

Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen serve as auxiliary battlegrounds. Hezbollah’s missile capacity threatens northern Israel; Israeli airpower targets Syrian corridors; Iraqi militias test American presence; Houthi drones disrupt Red Sea shipping.

Each front introduces escalation pathways. A strike in Beirut can trigger retaliation in Haifa; a clash in the Gulf can destabilize energy markets. The theater is interlinked.

From Shadow War to Overt Confrontation

Escalation unfolded through calibrated steps: cyber operations targeting nuclear facilities; assassinations of scientists; missile exchanges via proxies; drone strikes. The 2020 killing of General Qassem Soleimani was a watershed moment, signaling willingness for overt escalation.

Simultaneously, regional alignments shifted. The Abraham Accords reconfigured Arab–Israeli relations, creating tacit anti-Iran coalitions. Gulf states recalibrated threat perceptions, increasingly prioritizing Iranian expansionism over Palestinian solidarity. Tehran interpreted normalization as encirclement.

The cumulative effect was strategic compression. As Iran advanced enrichment and consolidated proxy networks, Israel calculated diminishing time horizons. The United States, balancing domestic war fatigue with alliance commitments, oscillated between deterrence and restraint.

When open hostilities erupted, they were the logical culmination of incremental militarization.

Theoretical Lenses: Realism, Constructivism, Political Theology

Realism explains balance-of-power dynamics. Iran seeks deterrent parity; Israel seeks monopoly of nuclear capability; the United States seeks regional dominance. War emerges from security dilemma escalation.

Constructivism foregrounds identity. Iran’s revolutionary narrative mandates resistance; Israel’s national ethos prioritizes existential vigilance; American exceptionalism frames intervention as order maintenance.

Political theology deepens analysis. The Islamic Republic embeds sacred legitimacy within statecraft. Opposition thus assumes eschatological dimension. The conflict transcends material calculus.

These lenses converge in illustrating how structural insecurity intersects with ideological narrative.

Ideology Versus Geopolitics

While the phrase “war on the mullahs” suggests a targeted campaign against clerical leadership, the conflict is fundamentally geopolitical rather than theological.

Israel’s security doctrine emphasizes preemption against existential threats. From the 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor to the 2007 bombing of Syria’s Al-Kibar facility, Israel has demonstrated willingness to act unilaterally to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions are therefore perceived in Jerusalem as intolerable. The war reflects continuity with this doctrine.

For the United States, Iran represents both a regional destabilizer and a symbol of resistance to American influence. However, Washington’s objectives are less clear-cut than Israel’s. Is the aim regime change, deterrence, containment, or negotiated capitulation ?

The ambiguity has profound consequences. Wars fought without clear political endgames risk prolonged instability.

International Law and the Precedent of Prevention

Preventive war challenges legal norms. Article 51 of the UN Charter permits self-defense after armed attack; anticipatory self-defense remains debated. Advocates argue imminent nuclearization constitutes existential threat. Critics warn normalization of prevention undermines sovereignty principle.

If preemptive strikes become standard response to suspected proliferation, global stability erodes. The Iranian case thus carries normative implications beyond region.

Domestic Calculations and Regime Resilience

Iran

External aggression historically consolidates regime authority. Yet prolonged conflict amid economic hardship may strain generational legitimacy. Youth demographics, urban protest movements, and sanctions fatigue complicate resilience calculus.

Israel

Security consensus persists, yet sustained mobilization burdens economy and civil cohesion. Missile exchanges with Hezbollah or direct Iranian strikes test civilian endurance.

United States

War fatigue constrains large-scale deployment. Policymakers must reconcile deterrence credibility with domestic aversion to prolonged entanglement.

The Multipolar Shift

The war unfolds within global transition. Russia deepens security cooperation with Tehran; China expands energy and infrastructure ties. European states advocate diplomacy but lack decisive leverage.

Iran leverages great-power rivalry to mitigate isolation. Israel reinforces strategic partnership with Washington. The conflict thus intersects with broader contestation between liberal internationalism and emergent multipolar alignments.

Economic Reverberations

The Strait of Hormuz remains global chokepoint. Escalation threatens energy markets, inflationary pressures, and maritime security. Insurance premiums surge; supply chains recalibrate.

Sanctions-induced economic fragmentation accelerates de-dollarization discourse. Energy geopolitics becomes instrument of strategic leverage.

Regional Dominoes and Proxy Escalation

Lebanon’s Hezbollah arsenal, Iraqi militia mobilization, Syrian entrenchment, and Yemeni missile capacities create multi-front volatility. A strike in one arena reverberates across others.

Red Sea shipping disruptions, Gulf maritime incidents, and cross-border drone exchanges multiply escalation pathways. The theater is interlinked ecosystem of deterrence.

The Road to Open War

For years, conflict remained below the threshold of open interstate war. However, repeated attacks on Israeli and U.S. assets by Iranian proxies, combined with escalating Israeli strikes inside Syria and covert operations within Iran, pushed the region toward overt confrontation.

The transformation from shadow war to declared hostilities reflected structural shifts:

• Iran’s advancing uranium enrichment levels.
• Israel’s perception of diminishing strategic patience.
• U.S. domestic political recalculations.
• The normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states, reshaping regional alliances.

The Abraham Accords significantly altered the strategic map. Gulf states increasingly viewed Iran—not Israel—as their principal security concern. This tacit alignment between Israel and certain Arab states reinforced Iran’s narrative of encirclement.

Meanwhile, Iran deepened ties with Russia and China, joining emerging multipolar alignments that challenge U.S. global dominance. Thus, the American–Israeli war on Iran is embedded within broader systemic shifts in international order.

The Institutionalization of Asymmetric Conflict

The Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988) consolidated the Islamic Republic’s militarized identity. Though the United States supported Iraq, the conflict reinforced Tehran’s siege mentality and validated its narrative of encirclement. The war’s devastation entrenched the regime’s reliance on asymmetric strategies rather than conventional parity.

The development of the “Axis of Resistance” emerged from this strategic logic. Hezbollah in Lebanon became Iran’s most sophisticated proxy, combining political legitimacy with military capacity. Iraqi Shi’a militias, Palestinian armed movements, and later the Houthis in Yemen extended Iranian reach across the Levant and the Gulf.

For Israel, Hezbollah’s missile capabilities and Iran’s entrenchment in Syria represented unacceptable encirclement. The 2006 Lebanon War and subsequent Israeli airstrikes in Syria were manifestations of an undeclared shadow war. Meanwhile, American forces in Iraq encountered Iranian-backed militias capable of inflicting sustained attrition.

The proxy system transformed regional conflict into a permanent low-intensity battlefield. Iran achieved deterrence without direct confrontation; Israel and the United States responded with covert sabotage, cyberwarfare, and targeted assassinations. The conflict remained below interstate war yet continuously destabilizing.

Strategic Futures

1. Managed Escalation: Limited conflict restoring deterrence equilibrium.
2. Chronic Attrition: Cyclical strikes without decisive outcome.
3. Regime Fracture: Internal instability reshaping governance.
4. Nuclear Threshold Deterrence: Iran achieves latent capability, institutionalizing Cold War–style standoff.

Each trajectory redefines Middle Eastern order.

Longue Durée Perspective: Continuity Within Change

Across four decades, certain constants endure:

• Iran’s pursuit of autonomous deterrence.
• Israel’s commitment to preemption.
• American oscillation between containment and engagement.
• Persistent proxy warfare as structural instrument.

The present war represents culmination rather than deviation. It reflects unresolved contradictions of postcolonial state formation, ideological sovereignty, and global power transition.

Conclusion: War Beyond Personalization

The American–Israeli war on the Islamic Republic transcends rhetoric about “mullahs.” It embodies contestation over sovereignty, nuclear legitimacy, regional hierarchy, and global order.

Military action may degrade facilities or recalibrate deterrence. Yet structural antagonisms persist. The outcome will shape not only Iran’s trajectory but the architecture of Middle Eastern and global politics.

In an era marked by erosion of unipolar dominance and resurgence of ideological states, this conflict stands as emblem of transitional turbulence. Its reverberations will extend beyond immediate battlefields, influencing norms of preventive war, alliances, and deterrence for decades to come.

To frame the conflict as a war on “mullahs” personalizes what is fundamentally systemic. The confrontation concerns nuclear sovereignty, regional hierarchy, ideological legitimacy, and global power transition. Military strikes may degrade infrastructure; sanctions may constrict economies; assassinations may eliminate individuals. Yet structural antagonisms persist beyond tactical victories.

History suggests wars rarely resolve the contradictions that generate them. Instead, they recalibrate balance, redefine deterrence, and produce unintended consequences. The American–Israeli war on Iran may delay nuclearization, reshape alliances, or destabilize regimes. It will not, however, extinguish the deeper contest over Middle Eastern order.

The conflict is a mirror reflecting broader transformations: the erosion of unipolarity, the persistence of ideological states, and the fragility of international norms. Its outcome will reverberate far beyond Tehran, Jerusalem, or Washington, influencing the trajectory of global politics in an era increasingly defined by strategic uncertainty.

The American–Israeli war on the Islamic Republic of Iran represents a watershed moment in Middle Eastern history. Rooted in ideological antagonism, shaped by nuclear diplomacy’s collapse, and intensified by regional realignments, the conflict transcends its immediate military dimension.

It forces reconsideration of fundamental questions: Can deterrence prevent nuclear proliferation? Does preemption enhance or undermine security? Can regional order be imposed through force? And what becomes of civilian populations caught between geopolitical titans?

History cautions against simplistic narratives. Wars rarely produce the clarity their architects envision. Instead, they reorder realities in unpredictable ways. The struggle between Washington, Jerusalem, and Tehran may ultimately reshape not only the Middle East but the architecture of global power itself.

In the final analysis, the war on the “mullahs” is not solely about clerics or centrifuges; it is about the contested future of sovereignty, identity, and order in a rapidly changing world.

You can follow Professor Mohamed Chtatou @Ayurinu