3 days ago
Is strength the only language Iran, Israel and Russia understand?
This week, the Iranian leadership's strategic confusion reached a pivotal moment with further erosion of its prestige. The moment revealed cracks in its project founded on an ideology that uses Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen as tools in its self-declared 'Axis of Resistance'.
Tehran thus now scrambles to gather the fragments of a waning hegemony that once made it a feared regional player, racing to regroup scattered proxies and summon traditional allies, including Russia. However, Moscow today finds itself in a reality of appeasement towards the only remaining superpower – the US – as it hopes for relief from crippling sanctions.
Both of Iran and Russia's leaderships are walking a tightrope of anxiety, caught between yearning for the grandeur of regional and international influence and the sobering realities of today, which demand begrudging compliance with US President Donald Trump's terms.
Iran's leadership appears rattled by the prospect of renewed US and Israeli military operations, and by the potential reimposition of European sanctions under the 'snapback' mechanism in response to its nuclear policies.
This mounting economic and military encirclement has sparked panic across Iran's various power centres, who all ultimately fall under supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. That panic partly explains why Tehran has turned to its regional arms in a desperate effort to salvage its diminishing influence.
Yet in Lebanon, Tehran's trajectory encountered a development it had not anticipated: it collided with a wall of newly affirmed Lebanese sovereignty, an outcome that defied expectations of an Iranian leadership long accustomed to Beirut deferring to its orders through its proxy Hezbollah.
It has become evident that the majority of Lebanese no longer want their country to be used by either Israel or Iran as a proxy battlefield for their interests. During the visit of Ali Larijani, Iran's top national security official, to Lebanon, it was clear that Tehran's arrogance was breaking under the weight of a defiant Lebanese state and people.
Indeed, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri took decisive steps towards a divorce from Iranian control. This is no minor development. Tehran had assumed it could wield Lebanon and Hezbollah as leverage in its negotiations with the Trump administration. Instead, it was caught off guard as the Trump team snatched that card from its hand.
Iran's leadership today finds itself cornered by the declining value and effectiveness of its armed proxies. For Tehran, this signals a countdown to its own waning relevance in the regional balance of power.
So what will it do? Will Mr Khamenei drink the cup of poison that his predecessor, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, famously chose when he accepted the ceasefire with Iraq? Or will the current leadership keep its head buried in the sand, refusing to acknowledge the serious decline in its regional weight, shrinking options, diminishing capabilities and fading prestige?
And what will the West decide in the face of Iran's rising panic, part of which manifested in the dangerous escalation by Hezbollah secretary general Naim Qassem, who resorted to threats against the Lebanese state and people should the government proceed with its decision to enforce the monopoly of arms?
The time has come for Washington and Brussels to take Lebanon more seriously.
The US is aware that the moment has arrived to raise the issue of Iranian proxies in backchannel as well as public bilateral negotiations. Tehran continues to believe it enjoys impunity for what it perpetrates in Lebanon because it assumes that the West cares only about the nuclear issue. Washington must now make clear to Tehran how wrong it is in that assumption.
Some may argue that the burden falls squarely on the US, given its influence over Iran, just like with Russia and Israel. That is true. But European powers also have leverage. Their top priority over the past three years has been to contain Russia's influence on the continent, as well as its war effort in Ukraine.
The Europeans have responded with economic sanctions on Moscow, the provision of advanced weaponry to Kyiv and the expansion of Nato. They are watching Mr Trump's moves vigilantly. At the same time, they are wrestling with their collective conscience over Israeli crimes against Palestinian civilians in Gaza and have waved the recognition of the state of Palestine as leverage.
While recognition would be a positive step, it needs to be supplemented with concrete actions – including serious sanctions – against Israel. Without that, Israel will continue imposing its agenda in the occupied territories.
Indeed, the weapon of sanctions might be the only effective means of altering Israel's conduct – just like it is expected to exert meaningful pressure on Iran.
After all, had Washington not announced the scope of sanctions he was prepared to impose on Russia within a timeframe, would Moscow have rushed to request a summit with Mr Trump in Alaska?
