The Islamic Republic of Iran has firmly asserted that the Palestinian cause, the political and humanitarian struggle for Palestinian self-determination, total liberation from Israeli settler occupation, and the establishment of a sovereign state, often focused on rights lost during the 1948 Nakba (‘catastrophe’) and the 1967 Six-Day War, are core elements of its anti-imperialist, anti-Israel, and Islamic revolutionary ideology since 1979, aiming to strengthen the ‘axis of resistance’ and challenge Israeli and United States of America (USA) influence in the region.
For years, the Islamic Republic of Iran operated under the doctrine of ‘strategic patience’. This was a deliberate, calculated form of restraint that guided how Iran and its network of allies dealt with the United States and the settler colony of Israel. Rather than confrontation, Iran built and leveraged a multilayered web of deterrence, as did its allies surrounding Israel, and helped to avert any major US and Israeli aggression.
The first serious challenge in Iran’s policy came in April 2024, when an Israeli strike destroyed the Iranian consulate in Damascus, killing senior Revolutionary Guard commanders. Iran’s response was to launch Operation True Promise 1, and a direct barrage of drones and ballistic missiles was fired at the settler colony of Israel. Throughout 2024 and into 2025, Iran attempted to maintain a form of managed restraint and carefully calibrated deterrence to avoid triggering war with Israel. But the hostile environment of constant Israeli attacks and aggression against Iran and its allies was shifting in ways that made this strategy untenable and disrupted Iran’s deterrence architecture.
Operation ‘Epic Fury’
Following the twelve-day intense war (June 13-24, 2025) between Israel, supported by the US, on one hand and Iran on the other, Iran formally declared a new doctrine in January 2026 of ‘active and unprecedented deterrence’.
When the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran, during ‘Operation Epic Fury’, on 28 February 2026, while negotiations were ongoing, they confirmed to the Iranian government that restraint offered no protection and would offer none in the future.
The objectives of the military actions were to overthrow the government of Iran (‘regime change’), obliterate its nuclear programme, destroy missile sites and capabilities and naval assets, and halt its regional influence. This conflict across the Middle East has now entered the third week, with a wide range of intense strikes on Iran and the eventual decapitation of the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on 28 February.
In addition, Israel continued to strike Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria. In response, through Operation True Promise 4, Iran demonstrated its new doctrine by hitting Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Turkey, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Cyprus in a matter of days. Israeli cities are now devastated, and all US Gulf coastal bases and facilities have been destroyed. The US is now relying on Indian ports for supply and logistics.
Iran has further warned of severe economic impacts, including the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The war is still raging with great violence and intensity.
Trump’s exit strategy
Ironically, in a dramatic turn of events, US president Donald Trump called Russian President Vladimir Putin on 9 March, only to describe their conversation as productive but further saying the Russian leader expressed interest in helping to address tensions in the Middle East. No peace prospects were offered to end the conflict. This is typically a comical scenario or face-saving device to avoid public embarrassment and defeat after the dismal performance of his Operation Epic Fury to install a regime change in Iran, and thus, he is trying to make some kind of manoeuvre through an off-ramp to find an escape route out of this difficult, tense and high-stakes conflict.
Iran’s position
Iran’s outlined primary conditions for a ceasefire in the current conflict with Israel and the US focus on a permanent halt to all aggressive actions. Iran demands a recognition of its legitimate rights, payment of reparations, an international guarantee of non-repetition of attacks by the US and Israel and seeks to secure an enduring truce rather than a temporary pause. The foremost condition is that Israel and the US must cease attacks on Iranian targets, with a guarantee that such actions will not be repeated. Thus, Iran is looking for a comprehensive, lasting and permanent agreement, rather than just a temporary pause of fighting.
Sadly, on 11 March, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2817 (2026), condemning Iran’s “egregious attacks” against Gulf nations and Jordan and blatantly disregarding Iran’s own precarious circumstances, such as the ongoing bombardment by US and Israeli forces. Honestly, it goes without saying that the UN has become a laughing stock.
In summary, many experts argue that de-escalation or a ceasefire that merely stops hostilities without changing the underlying conditions, such as the genocide and blockade of the Gaza Strip, continued illegal settlement expansion of settlers in the West Bank, and the absence of a political horizon, that is, the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders (West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem), recognised through a two-state solution framework of the UN, is a “diplomatic sham” that allows for the continuation of the conflict by other means.
Fundamentally, the Palestinian issue remains a central overriding issue for genuine peace in the Middle East and regional security. The conflict in Palestine is a major driver of regional instability, influencing actions by actors in the region and hindering long-term integration. Hopefully, Iran’s endurance and the urge for peace could lead to a durable peace solution in the Middle East and the total collapse of US imperial dominance in the region.
*Maj. Gen. (RTD) J. B. Tjivikua is a criminal intelligence analyst