US-Israel War on Iran and Iran’s Defence Against Aggression: A Grassroots Analysis with Evidence
By Dr. Afzal Razvi – Australia
The escalating confrontation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran has rapidly transformed into one of the most consequential geopolitical crises of the contemporary era. Far from being a sudden eruption, this conflict is the culmination of decades of strategic rivalry, contested sovereignty, and failed diplomacy. A rigorous, evidence-based and grassroots-oriented analysis reveals that the war must be understood not only through military developments but also through legal, economic, and human dimensions that shape its broader implications.
Historically, tensions between Iran and the United States intensified following the Iranian Revolution, which redefined Iran’s political identity and its relationship with Western powers. Subsequent decades witnessed sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and periodic crises. The signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 marked a rare moment of diplomatic breakthrough, aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. However, the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the agreement in 2018 significantly undermined trust and reintroduced economic and political pressures, setting the stage for renewed confrontation.
Empirical evidence suggests that the current escalation is closely linked to a pattern of “maximum pressure” policies combined with targeted military actions. Reports from institutions such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have repeatedly indicated fluctuating levels of Iranian nuclear activity, often shaped by the presence or absence of diplomatic engagement. Scholars such as Noam Chomsky and John J. Mearsheimer argue that great-power interventions in the Middle East frequently reflect strategic dominance rather than purely defensive imperatives, reinforcing the structural roots of such conflicts.
From a military standpoint, available data highlights the asymmetry between the actors involved. According to assessments by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the United States maintains the world’s largest defence budget, significantly surpassing Iran’s military expenditure. Israel, likewise, possesses advanced technological capabilities, including missile defence systems and cyber warfare infrastructure. In contrast, Iran has adopted a doctrine of asymmetric warfare, relying on ballistic missiles, drone technology, and regional alliances. This strategy is consistent with theories of “deterrence by denial,” where a weaker state seeks to impose sufficient costs to prevent outright domination.
The human cost of the conflict is substantiated by data from humanitarian organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). These bodies consistently report that modern conflicts disproportionately affect civilian populations, leading to displacement, food insecurity, and long-term socio-economic disruption. In the Iranian context, economic sanctions have compounded these effects, contributing to inflation, reduced access to medicine, and declining living standards. Studies published by the World Bank indicate that sanctions can reduce national GDP significantly, with the burden falling most heavily on ordinary citizens rather than political elites.
Economically, the war’s global repercussions are measurable and profound. The strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes, makes any disruption a matter of international concern. Data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) confirms that instability in this region directly correlates with spikes in global oil prices. This, in turn, affects inflation rates worldwide, particularly in energy-importing countries. The ripple effects are evident in rising transportation costs, food prices, and industrial production expenses, illustrating the interconnected nature of global markets.
Legal perspectives further complicate the narrative. Under the framework of international law, particularly the United Nations Charter, the use of force is prohibited except in cases of self-defence or with Security Council authorisation. Debates surrounding the legitimacy of pre-emptive strikes versus defensive responses remain highly contested. Legal scholars argue that the ambiguity in interpreting “imminent threat” has often been exploited to military interventions, thereby weakening the normative structure of international law.
Media studies also provide critical insights into how the conflict is perceived. Research in the field of Media Studies demonstrates that war reporting frequently reflects the geopolitical interests of dominant powers. This results in a narrative imbalance, where state-centric perspectives overshadow grassroots realities. Independent analyses and field reports often reveal discrepancies between official accounts and lived experiences, underscoring the need for more inclusive and human-centred reporting.
Despite the apparent military superiority of the United States and Israel, historical evidence suggests that asymmetric conflicts rarely yield swift or decisive victories. Cases such as prolonged engagements in the Middle East illustrate that resilience, local knowledge, and ideological motivation can sustain resistance over extended periods. Iran’s strategic depth – geographical, demographic, and political – positions it to endure prolonged pressure, thereby increasing the likelihood of a protracted conflict.
In conclusion, the US-Israel war on Iran cannot be adequately understood through a narrow military lens. It is a multifaceted crisis shaped by historical grievances, strategic calculations, economic interdependence, and human suffering. A grassroots analysis, supported by empirical evidence and scholarly perspectives, highlights the urgent need to re-evaluate prevailing narratives. The path forward must prioritise diplomacy, adherence to international law, and the inclusion of voices often excluded from policy discourse.
Without such efforts, the conflict risks entrenching cycles of violence and instability that will not only define the future of the Middle East but also reshape the contours of global order.
This article integrates empirical evidence and scholarly references to present a comprehensive grassroots perspective on one of the most critical conflicts of our time.
|