The collapse of precision warfare: Iran's role in the struggle for dignity
Image: Iranian Foreign Ministry / AFP
Ali Ridha Khan
THE fantasy of precision warfare is collapsing. With each Israeli airstrike, each Iranian drone, and each jittery American deployment, the veneer of 'surgical retaliation' is being stripped away.
What remains is raw and elemental: a struggle not merely over territory or proxies, but over dignity, narrative, and the political horizon of the Global South. And it is in this horizon that Iran has positioned itself as the last strategic spine in a region otherwise bent by American fear and Israeli force.
Let us be clear. The West— then led by an ever-confused Biden and now shadowed by Trump's isolationist pantomime—still believes that violence can be compartmentalised. That one can bomb Gaza, assassinate scientists, and sanction hospitals without consequence. But this belief, like Zionism itself, is a settler delusion.
Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has understood something Washington cannot: reputation is a weapon more potent than warheads. The Islamic Republic's restraint during the escalations of 2023 and 2024 was not a weakness. It was the patience of the hunted turning hunter. Israel's moral currency has never been lower; its genocidal siege on Gaza has moved even the most cynical into recognition. Iran knew then that the world did not need its rockets—it needed its example: a state that would not be baited into annihilation but would strike when the strike became unavoidable.
And yet, we hope—for the sake of history, for the raped soil of Gaza and the bombed flesh of Beirut—that Iran's restraint ends soon.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad loading
Not because war is noble, but because there are worse violences than war. The violence of waiting. The violence of witnessing. The violence of survival without sovereignty.
This is the violence Frantz Fanon spoke of when he wrote that the colonized 'learns that he is nothing in the eyes of the settler.' And so he must rise, not simply to destroy his oppressor, but to resurrect his own worth.
Iran, in this framework, becomes not just a nation-state—but a vessel of defiance. Fanon never saw 1979, but he would have recognised it immediately: a rupture in the colonial order. Ayatollah Khomeini, like Ali Shariati before him, did not believe in Westoxification—the intoxication with the West that neutralises the revolutionary soul. The Islamic Revolution was never meant to mimic the Westphalian world—it was a call to reimagine it.
Today's battle lines are no longer Cold War relics. They are metaphysical. On one side, Zionism, bolstered by empire and Silicon Valley surveillance; on the other, a constellation of wounded nations refusing to forget. As Steve Biko reminded us:'The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.' Iran's war is as much epistemological as it is ballistic—it is about reclaiming truth from CNN, memory from Mossad, and meaning from a UN that counts bodies but never blames the butcher.
Some will call last week's developments 'escalations.' That is incorrect. This is the culmination. The slow agony of colonised people cannot continue in half-measures. The Arab regimes, with their palatial cowardice and U.S. bases, now face a mirror they cannot avoid. To host the empire's hardware is to be targeted by the rage it generates. Iran's message is clear: if we burn, you burn with us.
And what of the world's so-called 'moderates'? The liberals who pace between peace and politics, issuing statements and equivocations? Ghassan Kanafani dismissed them best: 'If the Palestinian cause is not the cause of every revolutionary, it is not a cause at all.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
Hezbollah chief says won't surrender under Israeli threats
BEIRUT - Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem said Sunday his group would not surrender or lay down its weapons in response to Israeli threats, despite pressure on the Lebanese militants to disarm. His speech came ahead of a visit expected Monday by US envoy Thomas Barrack during which Lebanese authorities are due to respond to a request to disarm Hezbollah by year's end, according to a Lebanese official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "This (Israeli) threat will not make us accept surrender," Qassem said in a televised speech to thousands of his supporters in Beirut's southern suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold, during the Shiite Muslim religious commemoration of Ashura. Lebanese leaders who took office in the aftermath of a war between Israel and Hezbollah last year that left the Iran-backed group severely weakened have repeatedly vowed a state monopoly on bearing arms, while demanding Israel comply with a November ceasefire that sought to end the hostilities. Qassem, who succeeded longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah after an Israeli strike killed him in September, said the group's fighters would not abandon their arms and asserted that Israel's "aggression" must first stop. Israel has continued to strike Lebanon despite the November ceasefire, saying it is targeting Hezbollah sites and operatives and accusing Beirut of not doing enough to disarm the group. Lebanese authorities say they have been dismantling Hezbollah's military infrastructure in the south, near the Israeli border. - 'Not now, not later' - Under the ceasefire, Hezbollah was to pull its fighters back north of the Litani river, some 30 kilometres from the Israeli frontier. Israel was to withdraw its troops from Lebanon, but has kept them deployed in five areas that it deemed strategic. Qassem said Israel must abide by the ceasefire agreement, "withdraw from the occupied territories, stop its aggression... release the prisoners" detained during last year's war, and that reconstruction in Lebanon must begin. Only then "will we be ready for the second stage, which is to discuss the national security and defence strategy" which includes the issue of group's disarmament, he added. Supporters dressed in black for Ashura marched through Beirut's southern suburbs before his speech, waving Hezbollah banners as well as the Lebanese, Palestinian and Iranian flags. Some also carried posters of the slain leader Nasrallah. Hussein Jaber, 28, originally from south Lebanon, said the group's weapons "can't be handed over, not now, not later. Those who think Hezbollah will turn in its arms are ignorant." In his speech, Qassem also said his movement "will not accept normalisation... with the Israeli enemy", after Israel's top diplomat said his government was "interested" in such a move. Lebanon, which is technically still at war with Israel, did not comment. Syria, also mentioned by Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, said it was "premature" to discuss normalisation. - 'No pilgrims - Shiites in other countries around the region were also marking Ashura, which commemorates the death of the Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Mohammed, in a seventh century battle in modern-day Iraq. Iraq saw the largest commemorations on Sunday, particularly in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. In south Lebanon, hundreds of people participated in commemorations in Nabatiyeh, an area regularly targeted by Israeli strikes. Local resident Ali Mazraani told AFP that there were fewer people than usual "because of the situation in the south and the Israeli strikes that destroyed the market and several areas of the city". In Sunni Muslim majority Syria, several hundred faithful marked Ashura under the protection of security forces at the Sayyida Zeinab shrine south of Damascus, an AFP correspondent said. Syria's Shiite minority has been worried since Sunni Islamists in December toppled longtime ruler Bashar al-Assad, who was backed by Iran. Unlike in previous years, there were no processions in the Sayyida Zeinab area, where pro-Iran groups used to be heavily entrenched before Assad's ouster. "The Syrian state has bolstered its protection at this time," said Jaafar al-Amine, an official at the holy site. "This year, there have been no pilgrims from other countries" like Iran, Iraq or Lebanon, he added. By Kamal Mehanna With Bakr Alkasem In Damascus
IOL News
8 hours ago
- IOL News
BRICS nations to denounce Trump tariffs
BRICS leaders meeting in Rio de Janeiro from Sunday are expected to decry Donald Trump's hardline trade policies, but are struggling to bridge divides over crises roiling the Middle East. Image: AFP BRICS leaders meeting in Rio de Janeiro from Sunday are expected to decry Donald Trump's hardline trade policies, but are struggling to bridge divides over crises roiling the Middle East. Emerging nations representing about half the world's population and 40% of global economic output are set to unite over what they see as unfair US import tariffs, according to sources familiar with summit negotiations. Since coming to office in January, Trump has threatened allies and rivals alike with a slew of punitive tariffs. His latest salvo comes in the form of letters due to be sent starting Friday informing trading partners of new tariff rates expected next week on July 9. Diplomats from 11 emerging nations, including Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, have been busy drafting a statement condemning the economic uncertainty. Any final summit declaration is not expected to mention the United States or its president by name. But it is expected to be a clear political shot directed at Washington. "We're anticipating a summit with a cautious tone: it will be difficult to mention the United States by name in the final declaration," Marta Fernandez, director of the BRICS Policy Center at Rio's Pontifical Catholic University said. This is particularly the case for China, which has only recently negotiated with the US to lower steep tit-for-tat levies. "This doesn't seem to be the right time to provoke further friction" between the world's two leading economies, Fernandez said. Xi no show Conceived two decades ago as a forum for fast-growing economies, the BRICS have come to be seen as a Chinese-driven counterbalance to Western power. But the summit's political punch will be depleted by the absence of China's Xi Jinping, who is skipping the annual meeting for the first time in his 12 years as president. "I expect there will be speculation about the reasons for Xi's absence," said Ryan Hass, a former China director at the US National Security Council who is now with the Brookings Institution think tank. "The simplest explanation may hold the most explanatory power. Xi recently hosted Lula in Beijing," said Hass. The Chinese leader will not be the only notable absentee. War crime-indicted Russian President Vladimir Putin is also opting to stay away, but will participate via video link, according to the Kremlin. Hass said Putin's non-attendance and the fact that India's prime minister will be a guest of honor in Brazil could also be factors in Xi's absence. "Xi does not want to appear upstaged by Modi," who will receive a state lunch, he said. "I expect Xi's decision to delegate attendance to Premier Li (Qiang) rests amidst these factors." Still, the Xi no-show is a blow to host President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who wants Brazil to play a bigger role on the world stage. In the year to November 2025, Brazil will have hosted a G20 summit, a BRICS summit, and COP30 international climate talks, all before heading into fiercely contested presidential elections next year, in which he is expected to run. Middle path Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian, whose nation is still reeling from a 12-day conflict with Israel is also skipping the meeting. A source familiar with the negotiations said the BRICS countries were still in disagreement over how to respond to the wars in Gaza and between Iran and Israel. Iranian negotiators are pushing for a tougher collective stance that goes beyond referencing the need for the creation of a Palestinian state and for disputes to be resolved peacefully. Artificial intelligence and health will also be on the agenda at the summit. Original members of the bloc Brazil, Russia, India, and China have been joined by South Africa and, more recently, by Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Ethiopia and Indonesia. Analysts say that it has given the grouping more potential international punch. But it has also opened many new fault lines. Brazil hopes that countries can take a common stand at the summit, including on the most sensitive issues. "BRICS (countries), throughout their history, have managed to speak with one voice on major international issues, and there's no reason why that shouldn't be the case this time on the subject of the Middle East," Brazil's Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira told AFP. AFP
IOL News
8 hours ago
- IOL News
UN at a Crossroads: Birth Pangs of a New World Order
A viewer looks at the 'UN Charter' exhibition ahead of the 80th anniversary of its signing at the United Nations Headquarters on June 20, 2025 in New York. Marco Cordeiro Pires On June 26, the United Nations Charter celebrated its 80th anniversary. The current international order is based on its principles, which stand out in its preamble: the prevention of war, equal rights of peoples and nations, justice, social progress and a better life for all. All multilateral institutions subsumed under its creation since 1945, such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the UN Refugee Agency, etc. But unfortunately, we are seeing the principles of the UN Charter being disrespected in various parts of the world, precisely by the powers that considered themselves the creators and pillars of this order. Today, we live in a very complex international context marked by instability, regional wars, nuclear threats, attacks on the sovereignty of sovereign countries, and the exacerbation of unilateralism. The current global order is undergoing a profound stress test, which is producing challenges and many opportunities. Western powers claim to be the creators and defenders of the rules that govern the coexistence between nations. This stance is reflected in the preponderance of Western logic, which seeks to impose its political, economic and ideological models on the rest of the world as if they were universal. The history of European imperialism and colonialism in the 19th and 20th centuries contains an enormous list of atrocities committed in the name of a "civilising "and "evangelising" mission. In addition to military, political and economic domination, Western nations have developed an extensive theoretical and ideological apparatus, especially about international relations. In this field, there is a large concentration of Anglo-American voices, while few voices have been heard from countries of the Global South, as if non-Western peoples cannot have their perspectives on the essence of international politics. In undergraduate courses worldwide, international relations manuals naturalise the Western view as if it were the only truly valid analytical perspective. Realistic theorists of international relations, such as Samuel Huntington, with his theses on modernization and the clash of civilizations; Francis Fukuyama, who argued that the Western liberal model would be the end of history; and Graham Allison, who deals with the inevitability of a clash between the great powers in "Thucydides Trap", receive an amplified audience by arguing that the international order is a zero-sum game and that the security and well-being of a nation can only be sustained at the expense of the interests of other countries. In essence, realism brings with it the values of individualism and the idea that human beings are merely rational maximisers of petty interests. From there, realist political scientists extrapolate experience at the individual level to the behaviour of nation-states, postulating hegemony as the only acceptable condition for a great power. There are other Western theories of international relations, such as liberalism, which postulates the universalisation of its notion of democracy and human rights, which has often served as a pretext for interventions and regime changes around the world. Even the constructivist theory, which appears to be more progressive by incorporating non-state agents such as nongovernmental organisations, social movements, trade union federations and churches, etc, into the decision-making process, is used as an instrument of destabilisation via so-called colour revolutions, which are instruments of hybrid wars. At this point, it is worth highlighting that the three Anglo-American theories are used to maintain the status quo in the international order, in which the hegemony of the United States prevails. In this context, the ideas of Amitav Acharya are conducive to reflecting on the role of countries in the Global South in this process, as they can contribute new concepts about the relationship between civilisations, nations and people that do not mean hegemonism, supremacism, unilateralism or zero-sum logic. To this end, we could incorporate into the debate on the creation of a new international institutional framework concepts and philosophies from outside the Western world, such as the African concept of Ubuntu, which assumes that human beings are part of a broader and more meaningful relational community. According to this philosophy, people must be open and available to others, support those close to them, not feel threatened when others are capable and good, join forces to achieve better results, and understand that the differences between people are what generate growth. Likewise, we could mention the Taoist principle of Yin and Yang, in which opposites complement each other, the Confucian moral authority, and the umbilical relationship between man and nature expressed in the Inca concept of Pachamama. In conclusion, humanity should be viewed as a large garden, not a vast eucalyptus plantation. Civilisations, cultures and ethnic groups are flowers that contribute to the beauty of this garden. Humanity is facing a challenging crisis. It is necessary to strive for the birth of a new world order that guarantees all people enjoy the realisation of all the promises made 80 years ago when the UN was created. Peace, security and prosperity will be the collective fruits. * The author is a professor of international political economy at São Paulo State University in Brazil. This article was originally published at ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
