In the arena of international relations, hostilities and rivalries are not usually formed on the basis of emotions; rather, they are rooted in interests, power, and strategic calculations. From this perspective, to understand the reason for the ongoing confrontation between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, one must move beyond the level of official slogans and claims and address the geopolitical, economic, and strategic foundations of this confrontation.
More than four decades have passed since the victory of the Islamic Revolution, yet the political pressures, economic sanctions, psychological operations, intelligence wars, and efforts to contain Iran’s power continue. This reality presents observers with an important question: Why do the United States and the power structure governing the international system have a problem with the existence of a powerful, independent, and influential Iran in West Asia? The answer to this question must be sought in Iran’s special place in regional and global equations.
Few countries in the world enjoy a position that is simultaneously linked to Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, the Indian subcontinent, and the Eastern Mediterranean. Iran is located in one of the world’s most sensitive geopolitical spots and has long been a crossroads of trade, energy, and civilizational routes.
In America’s strategic view, controlling or at least containing an actor with such capacities is of vital importance. A country with a considerable geographical expanse, vast energy resources, a young and educated population, and a historical record spanning several millennia, if possessed of political independence, can become one of the poles of regional power.
From this angle, the principal issue is not merely the Islamic Republic or a particular government; rather, it is the very existence of an independent power in the heart of West Asia that can challenge the arrangements desired by Washington.
After World War II, the United States endeavored to consolidate an international order based on its political, economic, and military superiority. Within this framework, many of Washington’s allies in various regions of the world were, in one way or another, integrated into the US-led security and economic structure.
However, Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979 created a different equation. The Islamic Republic not only exited America’s strategic orbit but also turned the idea of political independence and resistance to the pressure of great powers into one of the principles of its foreign policy.
In reality, the main challenge from Washington’s perspective is that Iran has refused to accept the role of a subordinate actor. The experience of the past four decades shows that whenever a country has stood against the favored order of the great powers and taken an independent path, it has faced various pressures. Iran has been no exception to this rule.
Another major dimension of this confrontation relates to Israel’s place in America’s regional strategy. Over the past decades, Israel has become Washington’s most important ally in West Asia, and a significant portion of America’s regional policies have been designed with the security and superiority of this regime in mind.
Under such conditions, the emergence of a regional power that is not comparable to Israel in terms of population, geography, civilization, and strategic weight, while simultaneously opposing its policies, becomes a serious challenge.
Iran is the only country in the region that has not only refused to accept Israel’s hegemony but has also declined to support the formation of regional arrangements based on this regime’s absolute supremacy. Hence, a significant part of the pressures exerted on Tehran can be analyzed within the framework of efforts to maintain the power balance favored by the United States and Israel in the region.
The issue is not solely Iran’s hard power. Perhaps even more important than its military, missile, or economic capability is the model Iran has presented of political independence.
Great powers are usually more fearful of the spread of a model than of a single country. If a country can maintain its path of development, scientific progress, defensive capability, and regional influence without relying on foreign powers, it sends the message to other countries that dependence on dominant powers is not inevitable.
From this perspective, Iran is not merely a regional actor; it is an example of the possibility of resistance against extensive foreign pressure. This very fact makes Iran’s successes a source of sensitivity for some international actors.
The extensive economic sanctions imposed on Iran must also be analyzed within this same framework. Contrary to the claims made, a significant portion of these sanctions are related not to a specific issue but to the very principle of Iran’s capability.
Experience has shown that whenever Iran has made progress in areas such as nuclear technology, defense industries, energy, nanotechnology, aerospace, or modern technologies, a new wave of pressures has also taken shape.
The primary goal of these pressures has been to limit the capacities of Iran’s national power and to raise the costs of its political independence. In other words, the issue is not simply changing a particular policy but preventing Iran from becoming a model power in the region.
The developments of recent years in the world have also increased Iran’s significance. The rise of powers such as China, the revival of Russia’s role, the expansion of institutions like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the relative decline in the concentration of global power in the West have created new conditions.
In this transitional environment, Iran can become one of the effective actors in the new global order. Its geographical position, energy capacities, access to transit corridors, and extensive relations with emerging powers have strengthened Iran’s standing in future equations.
It is natural that under such circumstances, the United States would try to prevent Iran from becoming one of the influential poles of the new order, because the strengthening of Iran would mean a reduction of a portion of Washington’s traditional influence in the region.
America’s confrontation with Iran cannot be explained merely through daily political differences or episodic disputes. The root of this confrontation lies in a deeper reality: the reality of a country that possesses a privileged geopolitical position, vast resources, a civilizational background, human capacities, and the political will to preserve its independence.
From the perspective of many observers, the main issue for the United States is not simply the policies of the Islamic Republic, but the very existence of a powerful, independent, and influential Iran, an Iran that has refused to be defined within the framework of the dominant powers’ favored order and has striven to follow its own path based on national interests and calculations.
It is for this reason that the more capable Iran has become in various scientific, economic, defense, and regional spheres, the more sensitivities and pressures against it have increased. Within such a framework, a significant part of the developments of the past four decades can be understood not as a mere political disagreement, but as a continuous effort to contain the power of a country that has made independence one of the most important components of its identity and policy.
MNA
