IRANIAN Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi recently travelled to Pakistan, Oman, and Russia to explore ways to end the conflict in the Middle East and ease the oil transaction through the war-induced blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
The United States and Israel, arch-enemies of Iran after the Islamic revolution in 1979, have for decades been engaged in confrontations and in a shadow war.
Iran’s nuclear programme is at the centre of the conflict. Israel, reportedly possessing nuclear weapons and not being bound by certain United Nations obligations, is consistently pursuing the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capability, including the alleged assassination of its nuclear scientists within the country. The United States, Israel’s greatest ally, has also consistently emphasised stopping Iran’s nuclear facilities, striking three primary locations in both wars, June 2025 and February 2026.
The conflicts in the Middle East are often seen through military strategy or geopolitics, but at a deeper level, they are a war between two powerful ideologies: Wilayat al-Faqih and Zionism. Both serve as the origin and foundational pillars of their respective states. Over time, they have been transformed into sources of power; they thrive and struggle for their existence, belief, and legitimacy.
Zionism, in its term, is an idea which argues that Jewish people, too, deserve a homeland of their own, specifically in a land with which they claim to have historical associations. The idea took root in Europe when Jews were persecuted, particularly after the Holocaust. It emerged, developed, and evolved into a form of nationalism and a religious duty to struggle for. Jews migrated from Europe to Palestine and occupied the lands of Arab populations, which is considered by many in the Muslim World as an illegitimate state. The creation and expansion of Israel led to the forceful displacement of millions of Arab inhabitants, the killing of landowners, and the occupation of land for Jewish settlement. This represents a dark chapter of modern history that cannot be ignored and, by definition, is associated with imperial colonialism.
In wartime, these narratives become more pronounced. On one side, it is framed as self-defence; on the other, as occupation and illegal settlement. Israel, in advancing the Zionist agenda, is expanding towards a ‘greater Israel’, including parts of several established Gulf countries, which they claim as their ‘promised land’. Israel’s sustained campaign, therefore, is less like a movement for survival and more like a project aimed at maintaining control, domination, and superiority over the neighbouring countries.
Iran, for its part, bases its tenets on Wilayat al-Faqih, a Shia religious idea that underpins the Islamic Republic of Iran. It argues that, in the absence of the Twelfth Imam of Shia Islam, Imam Mahdi, a qualified jurist should govern the Islamic Republic. The concept is originally theological and developed into politics during the Iranian Revolution, when Ruhollah Khomeini stood against the Shah to bring democracy, justice, and freedom. He overthrew the Shah’s regime and ‘revolutionised’ the society into an Islamic republic.
The idea expanded to other Shia political groups in Lebanon and Iraq, thereby shaping the “axis of resistance”. The concept of these groups reflects Iran’s revolutionary outlook: the elimination of imperialism and colonialism, alongside opposition to Israel, which is considered an illegitimate state and a product of British colonial power. As a part of Iran’s broader anti-imperialist project, the groups are grounded in defending the oppressed irrespective of region or religion, primarily Sunnis in Palestine.
Zionism, in support of war, speaks the language of self-defence and existence, citing Israel as the only country for the Jewish people in the world. Wilayat al-Faqih, for its part, speaks the language of resistance and divine duty to defend the oppressed around the globe. Each sees itself as legitimate and the other as fundamentally wrong, which creates a situation in which one side is ‘absolutely right’ and the opponent is ‘absolutely wrong’, therefore shrinking the space for negotiation and peace talks in the region.
In the current scenario, both ideas are no longer abstract; they carry weight and power and shape the decisions that affect millions of lives. Airstrikes, rocket attacks, and proxies are the extensions of these deeper beliefs.
Ideology on paper and military action on the ground are shaping the entire region, determining the destinies of millions of people. These competing ideologies, for decades, have been affecting mostly ordinary people, costing their lives and those of their loved ones.
The conflict, thus, is beyond geographical domination. It aims at the ideas that shape the regions. As long as each side considers itself absolutely right and unquestionable, the cycle of conflict is likely to continue. Any meaningful change requires compromise, which seems unlikely, and without such change in approach, the region may remain trapped in this pattern of violence for years to come.
——————————–
Azmat Ali writes in English and Urdu, with a focus on literature, politics, and religion. Views expressed here are the author’s personal. He can be contacted at rascov205@gmail.com and @azmata90_lle (Instagram ID)
