Why Iran’s threat keeps haunting the Middle East - and how to finally break the cycle - opinion

For nearly 50 years, international policy toward Iran has centered on the theocracy installed in 1979, focusing on containment, regime change, or waiting for internal collapse. However, the persistent nature of Iran's threat raises a critical question: why does it resurface even after efforts to contain it?

The core issue, according to this analysis, lies not solely with Iran's nuclear program, missile stockpile, or proxy networks, which are seen as destructible assets. Instead, the enduring threat originates from the fundamental structure of the Iranian state itself. This includes its large population, significant energy reserves, scientific and industrial base, geographic reach, and honed military institutions. These elements provide a capacity for recovery that transcends the loss of specific facilities or leaders.

History shows that international dealings have often targeted Iran's capabilities, degrading them temporarily. Yet, this approach fails to address the underlying capacity of a centralized state with vast resources and expertise to rebuild once conditions ease. The problem, therefore, moves beyond disarmament to the very structure of the state and how power is administered internally. This disconnect was evident in the 2015 nuclear deal, which capped certain nuclear activities but left Iran's regional standing and its missile and proxy operations largely intact.

Even significant disruptions, like the killing of Maj.-Gen. Qasem Soleimani, jolted the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps but did not permanently dismantle its influence networks. Strikes on military sites inflict damage but cannot ensure permanent disablement, leading to a cycle of buildup, strike, and rearmament. The analysis suggests that regime change, while potentially altering rhetoric, may not fundamentally change the nation's course if the state's power administration remains untouched. Geography, national interests, and latent capabilities persist regardless of leadership, meaning long-held regional ambitions could re-emerge, perhaps framed in nationalist terms.