March 14, 2026
As the conflict in the Iran theatre is rapidly unfolding, it is difficult to make a proper assessment of the situation there. Also, assessment in the calm academic space would look different from the policymaking space engaged in intense action. Keeping in view these constraints, here I attempt to make a broader theoretical assessment of the ongoing conflict and its implications.
The recent developments evoke the clash of civilizations theory developed by Samuel Huntington in the 1990s. The theory posited that wars in the post-cold war era would be fought along religious divides, bringing the West and the Islamic states such as Iran to clash. Critics like Amartya Sen called this theory “reductionist” as it undermined the prospects of civilizational dialogue.
The clash theory, however, makes at least partial sense as Iran, since the revolution in 1979, adopted a hostile attitude towards the United States with slogans like “Death to America.” Whether it was the hostage crisis in 1979 which lasted for months or the Islamic regime supporting anti-American groups worldwide, Iran emerged as an anti-American center in the Middle East. To establish a friendly regime in Iran has been in the wish list of the U.S. since the revolution, even though it was not always in active policy agenda.
But the question is: how to change the regime? Huntington theorized that waves of democratization would make the world democratic gradually. Similarly, the Democratic Peace theory suggested that the more countries in the world become democratic, the more there are prospects of peace and cooperation.
But such a hope was belied by the developments after the cold war ended as civil wars ensued in many parts of the world. Also, imposition of democracy from outside proved murky as in Afghanistan and in the countries that underwent the Arab Spring. Despite spending trillions of dollars and active military engagement on the ground for two decades, the American democratic project in Afghanistan was not successful. Afghanistan today is not that much different than it was two decades ago. And the Taliban is still in power.
One hopes the same story does not repeat in Iran. Eliminating the top leadership might create a leadership vacuum, but the followers of the ideology would fill the vacuum soon. In Iran, as in Afghanistan, religious authority and political authority are deeply entangled, and unless democracy is cultivated within, and unless a robust pluralistic culture evolves from within, outside intervention would not help much. The U.S. and its allies would do well to support the democratic aspiration of the people in Iran, and let the local democratic leadership evolve.
Also, one does not yet comprehend the exact cost of the conflict. The number of lives lost and material destruction whether in Iran or in Israel are yet to be assessed. The death of six U.S. soldiers has already caused concern domestically, leading to raging debates about the future of the war and the U.S. involvement in it. The unintended consequences such as loss of lives of civilians including children raise moral concerns.
It would make sense to revive the dialogue with Iran from where it was left. Much weakened, Iran might be nudged to engage in dialogue to avoid further loss in the war. In this direction, it would make sense for the U.S. to engage its allies in Europe to push Iran for dialogue, while building consensus at home towards addressing the conflict.
The sooner the conflict is addressed, the sooner the U.S. and its allies engage Iran and foster change, the better. A long drawn-out conflict would be in no one’s interest.
With active conflicts in many parts of the world such as Russia-Ukraine, Pakistan-Afghanistan, and in the Middle East, or humanitarian disaster as in Somalia, the people and states in the world are becoming increasingly war-habituated. In the world of social media where news spreads instantly, it is as if human society is witnessing before their eyes the play of the Hegelian logic that war is the arbiter of right.
(The article was published under a different title in Orlando Sentinel, on March 7.)
