Iran as the 4th Great Power

There is conflicting expert analysis on the 2026 Iran war. One that has garnered particular attention in the last week has been provided by Professor Robert Pape.

His take on the situation is fairly nuanced but provides an interesting perspective on the ongoing conflict. There are also potential disagreements which other experts have with his perspective. 

Pape’s perspective and analysis:

Similar to the Vietnam war, the USA is once again involved in a conflict where it cannot ‘bomb its way to victory’. This results in a few options:

1. Declare victory and go home.

The Strait of Hormuz cannot be secured via air or sea dominance. The United States cannot destroy enough of the Iranian drones without a significant ground invasion. All Iran has to do is reliably threaten the ships, the United States has to defend them. This puts Iran at a fundamental strategic advantage.

In resisting the United States, Iran will become the regionally dominant power in the Middle East within the next few years. Militarily it will have proven itself dominant over all other regional powers. It will be the de-facto controller of approximately 20% of the world’s oil (and other resources as well). 

Combined with Russia, they will control over 30% of the world’s oil and a substantial block of the global energy market. A joint strategic interest with Russia, China, and Iran creates a unified front that will threaten American dominance for the first time in most people’s lifetimes.

Given that the rules of the world are determined by the country(s) with strategic dominance, the current situation of the Rules Based International Order (RBIO) is fundamentally under threat.

Due to the continued bombing in their country, it is likely that the democratically minded Iranians will unify with the current regime and there will be unified support for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Iran getting a nuke will be a near-certainty. It is not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’.

2. Obliterate the entire country.

President Donald Trump warned that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again” in early April in reference to the consequences of Iran not making a deal. The death of a civilization clearly refers to genocide as a solution to America’s problem. 

For context, the last time an American president said anything close to this was President Harry Truman in reference to the use of a nuclear bomb at Hiroshima in 1945. His statement was:

“We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war.”

In the case of President Truman, the call was a threat to obliterate military capability. President Trump’s threat went far beyond that. An American president is one of the few individuals in the world that is capable of following through on the threat to eliminate a civilization in a single night. 

Regardless of one’s personal views on this particular president, this threat was taken seriously and had a significant chilling effect globally.

3. A significant ground offensive.

Similar to long-term deployment like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States would be forced to do a major ground deployment. The two main goals are to find all the enriched uranium and sustainably protect the Strait of Hormuz. 

This would necessitate a sustained occupation of the Iran until regime change to something acceptable to the United States could be put in place.

The degree to which this would be politically unpopular would likely result in President Trump risking a rapid loss of political capital. There would also be simultaneous pressure from approximately 30% of the American population to maintain a ground war. After having committed troops on the ground, these Americans will be resistant to the idea of troops having ‘died for nothing’ if America leaves.

4. Make a deal.

(Pape is very careful when saying this, acknowledging how this may come across)

Iran gets to keep their enriched uranium. There is an “enforced military containment of Israel”, preventing them from attacking Iran or its allies.

If Iran has global power, then there are very few things that will encourage it to give up said global power. One of the few things might be confidence that Israel will cease attacking it or it’s allies.

Pape maintains that this proposed component of negotiation would likely be politically untenable but also clarifies that unlike the other options, this one is only a political issue. This positions the other options as significantly worse and this option as the best of bad options.

Critics of Pape’s analysis broadly fit into the following categories:

1. A disruptor is not a global power

Just because they can blow up ships and commit terror attacks does not mean that have the same economic, military, or technological infrastructure of a superpower.

2. Iran has been physically weakened

While Pape focuses on how even 10% of the Iranian drones present a significant enough threat to give them sufficient control over the Strait of Hormuz, critics argue that the physical destruction of the majority of their military infrastructure has surely weakened them. It would follow that they are farther from a global power now then before.

3. The regime is fragile

In addition to the elimination of previous leadership, continued bombing by Israel and the United States calls into question the viability of Iranian leadership. From the perspective of a civilian, why would one trust a government that is allowing its people to be bombed?

Pape disagrees with this, arguing that the bombing has a unifying effect.

4. Iran has isolated itself

By attacking its neighbours, Iran has further isolated itself and has proven it cannot be trusted. It is unlikely it will form a global power in the face of this.

Pape disagrees and points to evidence that eastern leaders seem to be distancing themselves from the United States and are capitulating to Iran. The main argument being that these leaders do not really care about the trustworthiness of Iran when over 90% of their oil comes from the Strait of Hormuz. As long as the oil is flowing they are friends with whoever is in charge.

5. Disagreement in Iran’s power

Critics tend to agree with the assessment of Israel and the United States that Iran is weak and not a serious world player. They claim that Pape overestimates their power. Pape argues the reverse, that they are underestimating Iran. Neither can fundamentally prove their position, but it cuts to the underlying premise which informs much of their disagreement.

My thoughts

On March 10 we put up a video on YouTube covering the Iran situation. One of the major points of the video is that the main decision is a dichotomy:

How much is the west willing to sacrifice to get rid of terrorism?

The basic idea being outlined is that, while Iran is in many ways the #1 or #2 enemy of the west (depending on context), it is going to be very expensive to eliminate this problem.

Whether it is sustained energy cost impacts, geopolitical capital, military resources, etc. There are many ways the price can be paid, but there is a price, and it will be expensive.

To put things extremely bluntly to illustrate the point: People need to decide what price they are willing to pay for children to not be used as suicide bombers targeting civilians.The reality is that most people are not willing to pay the price of what it will cost and will accept the child suicide bombers. Most won’t say they will accept it, they will argue a false dichotomy, but the reality remains that for most frankly:

1. If it hasn’t impacted them directly they basically don’t care.

2. If it has impacted them directly they probably assume it won’t happen again and they still don’t really care.

3. Cost of living (the price at the pump) is the overwhelmingly most important issue to most people; often to a point where other issues are not generally a serious consideration.

The problem that many will have now though, is that there are multiple points of no return that have now been crossed. The new choice becomes:

Do we abort the current trajectory and absorb whatever losses have occurred as a sunk cost? Iran goes back to being Iran but all that was lost is still lost.

Or 

Do we go all the way?

Pape is likely correct in that going all the way will probably require one of two options:

1. A long and sustained ground invasion.

2. Nuclear obliteration.

Learn more and watch the full video here.

Vezina is the CEO of Prepared Canada Corp. and is the author of Continuity 101. He can be reached at info@prepared.ca.