The recent conflict between the United States and Israel against Iran has entered an unexpected phase. Initial presentations from Washington suggested a swift military campaign to alter the strategic balance and corner Tehran, but the reality has proven far more complex than anticipated. For months, the White House maintained that Iran was on the brink of total defeat within the first one or two days of conflict, expecting a rapid dismantling of Iranian capabilities and serious destabilization of its government. However, developments indicate a different story.
According to analysis by Farhad Ibragimov, a lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University and a visiting lecturer at the Institute of Social Sciences of the Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration in Russia, Iran possesses significant resilience, challenging the assumption of an easy victory for Washington and Tel Aviv. “Despite immense pressure, Iran has not shown signs of systemic collapse and has maintained the operation of key state institutions, military infrastructure, and governance mechanisms,” Ibragimov wrote, as reported by RT on March 13, 2026. “the current situation demonstrates that Washington’s initial calculations were overly optimistic and failed to account for several fundamental factors underlying Iran’s resilience.”
How Iran Maintained Stability
This resilience is particularly notable given initial reports, on the first day of the conflict, that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had been killed. The U.S. Reportedly believed the Iranian regime was weakened and would collapse like a house of cards with a decisive blow. The logic was that eliminating the Supreme Leader would trigger a chain reaction: elites losing coordination, institutions becoming dysfunctional, and the state structure rapidly disintegrating. This scenario was likened to the events in Iraq in 2003, where the destruction of the central authority led to a rapid disintegration of state institutions and a prolonged period of systemic crisis.
However, events in Iran have revealed a fundamentally different picture. State institutions have remained operational, key government bodies have continued functioning, and the decision-making process has not been disrupted. “This demonstrates that the political framework of the Islamic Republic does not rely solely on individual leadership, but also on a strong institutional architecture capable of ensuring stability even amidst conflict,” Ibragimov explained. “the Assembly of Experts – a consultative body responsible for selecting the Supreme Leader – has appointed Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as the latest Supreme Leader. This demonstrates the stable operation of institutional power continuity.”
Iran has also developed a degree of immunity to “stress tests” in modern history. The country’s political system has faced serious challenges previously, including the devastating Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, decades of U.S. Sanctions, international isolation, and regional crises. This model combines religious-political legitimacy with a strong security apparatus and a sufficiently flexible governance structure, allowing it to adapt to external pressures. “The current crisis serves as another ‘test’ of this structure’s resilience. As events unfold, it becomes increasingly clear that American expectations of achieving its strategic goals quickly have been misguided,” Ibragimov stated. “If this crisis is resolved without major upheaval, it will further demonstrate the robustness of the state model created after the Islamic Revolution. Such trials often have the opposite effect in the long run, strengthening internal unity and enhancing the political system.”
This understanding of Iran’s internal dynamics is shared by countries with extensive experience dealing with Tehran, such as Russia, and China. These nations understand the nuances of Iran’s political system, its mobilization capacity in the face of external threats, and its high level of institutional stability. “That is why experts in these countries maintain a more measured and realistic view of the prospects for coercive pressure against Iran,” Ibragimov added.
Miscalculations in Washington’s Strategy
The rhetoric of U.S. Leadership also reveals key observations. A closer look at statements by President Donald Trump, both on social media and in public speeches, reveals a noticeable political and emotional turbulence within his administration. “The inconsistency of statements issued by the White House has been striking since the beginning of the conflict,” Ibragimov noted. “Initially, U.S. Officials stated that the strategic goal of the pressure campaign against Iran was regime change. Subsequent statements suggested that the focus was solely on ‘demilitarization’ and limiting Iran’s military capabilities. This was followed by hints about the need to change Iran’s political system.”
This evolving discourse created a sense of uncertainty. Similar inconsistencies were observed in statements by key administration officials, such as U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who repeatedly issued contradictory messages over the past week. “This constant shift in rhetoric inevitably creates the impression of a lack of a clear strategy. The more Trump insists that the situation is developing successfully and is fully under control, the sharper the contrast between this narrative and reality,” Ibragimov added. He pointed to Trump’s attempts to draw parallels between Iran and Venezuela as an example, noting that this comparison failed due to the fundamentally different political structures of the two countries.
Inspired by what they considered a successful strategy in the case of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, the White House hoped to apply a similar approach to Tehran, assuming that creating external pressure and supporting internal destabilization would lead to a rapid regime collapse. “However, this thinking reveals a significant misunderstanding of the Iranian state,” Ibragimov argued. “Even in the face of threats from the U.S. And Israel regarding potential attacks on the country’s leadership, the Iranian elite have not shown signs of panic or political paralysis.”
the current aggression can be seen not as a display of strength and dominance by the U.S., but as an indication of American weakness. “When economic, political, and informational tools fail to achieve the desired results, military action becomes a last resort,” Ibragimov concluded.
The situation remains fluid, and the long-term implications of this conflict are still unfolding. The resilience demonstrated by Iran’s institutions, coupled with the apparent miscalculations in Washington’s strategy, suggests a prolonged and complex engagement. Further developments will likely hinge on diplomatic efforts and the evolving geopolitical landscape in the region.
What are your thoughts on the current situation? Share your perspectives in the comments below.
