Why the US and Israel Can’t Defeat Iran: Inside Shia Ideology, Military, and Future

Prihandono Wibowo | Lecturer, International Relations Department, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional “Veteran” Jawa Timur, Indonesia | 

This very month July (2026 ) has become a time of deep mourning for Iran. The nation of 93 million is mourning the funeral of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was assassinated  in the US-Israeli attack in February 2026. This attack also claimed the lives of senior officials, several top Iranian military generals, and members of Khamenei’s family. After his martyrdom, the U.S. and Israel promoted the idea of a large-scale movement to overthrow the Islamic Republic and establish a so-called “democratic” government. This was supported by major protests in January 2026, which called for improved economic conditions. Soon after confirming the Ayatollah’s death, both Donald Trump and Netanyahu publicly called on Iranians to rise and dismantle the Islamic Republic. Trump similarly urged Iran’s armed forces to collaborate with the Iranian people to overthrow the clerical leadership. Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, actively used social media to encourage protests and expressed support through both rhetoric and real operations.  

Iran’s resistance

The assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and subsequent US-Israeli attacks on Iran from February to June 2026 actually unified the Iranians across the nation rather than weakening them. Instead, Iranians expressed strong support for Imam Sayyid Mujtaba Khamenei, the successor to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and called for retribution against the US and Israel. For over a hundred days since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s martyrdom, Iranians have gathered nightly across various locations in Iran to condemn US and Israeli actions. During the funeral procession of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranians made it clear that their gathering was not only to mourn but also to seek justice for their leader. Long-standing slogans like “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” continue to resonate. Many Iranians have criticized the diplomatic maneuver by President Pezeshkian’s government, which signed an MoU with the US before avenging Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s martyrdom. 

Iran also shows clear resistance through intensified assaults on U.S. and Israeli military sites. About 20 U.S. facilities across eight Gulf states have suffered significant damage. These attacks have affected runways, radar systems, logistics hubs, command centers, air defenses, and combat units like aircraft and drones. Iran also fired multiple missiles at key locations in Israel. The Iranian public supported their military’s strong counteraction against the U.S. and Israel.

A resilient foreign policy can enable Iran to resist U.S. efforts to dominate it. The U.S. and Israel’s goals of transforming Iran from an Islamic to a secular regime are illusory. Their demands that Iran halt nuclear enrichment have not been met, and Iran continues to develop ballistic missiles despite pressure. Additionally, Iran has not ceased its support for groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon. Iran’s Islamic government and the Wilayatul Faqih system remain firmly in place and enjoy broad support. Iran maintains its nuclear enrichment for peaceful use and continues to produce ballistic missiles, while support for groups such as the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon persists. 

Even the MoU between Iran and the U.S., often criticized in Iran for being too compromising and then sparking internal debate in Iran, still underscores Iran’s strategic advantage over the U.S. The agreement outlines Iran’s benefits, including the removal of both primary and secondary U.S. economic sanctions; a reconstruction plan for Iran’s infrastructure costing hundreds of billions of dollars; respect for Iranian sovereignty; the lifting of the U.S. naval blockade; and safeguards against aggression. Additionally, Iran can directly export oil and potentially access frozen assets abroad. The MoU also reaffirms Iran’s long-standing stance against developing nuclear weapons. 

Sources of Iranian Resistance

Iran’s resistance extends beyond rhetoric and speeches, manifesting through direct military confrontations and firm negotiations with the US. But what underpins Iran’s resilience against the US and Israel? Material strength, such as its advanced military equipment, plays a key role in its confrontations with superpowers like the US and Israel. Iran possesses a diverse arsenal of missile types, including ballistic and hypersonic variants capable of bypassing the US and Israel’s sophisticated air defense systems. Estimates suggest Iran has around 3,000 missiles, in contrast to the superior military capabilities of the US, supported by Israel. Despite these constraints, Iran employs a highly effective asymmetric warfare strategy. While its military power isn’t on par with the US and Israel, Iran exerts significant pressure on their defense through missile strikes and drone attacks. As President Pezeshkian stated in June 2026, without missile capabilities, Iran would suffer devastation similar to Gaza being bombarded by Israel.

Iran’s core strength isn’t based only on material assets like missiles and drones. Instead, it stems from the nation’s ideological principles, religious values, and historical experiences that define the country. In security studies, this is known as strategic culture – a collection of historical values, beliefs, and perceptions that influence a nation’s security, defense, and foreign policies. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has prospered despite facing intimidation, prolonged conflicts, economic sanctions, and international pressure. Iran uses the historical context created by these multifaceted pressures to cultivate resilience. 

Shia identity, centered on the martyrdom of the Shia Imams, runs deeply through Iranian society. The story of Imam Husayn’s martyrdom at Karbala over 1300 years ago continues to inspire the nation’s spirit of resistance. In that event, Imam Husayn, supported by roughly 70 followers, faced thousands of soldiers under the rule of the tyrant Yazid ibn Muawiya. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei highlighted that Imam Husayn’s stand against tyranny remains relevant today. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that the symbolic significance of the Battle of Karbala persists in various modern forms. Iranians often compare their resistance against the United States and Israel to Imam Husayn’s stand against the forces of Yazid ibn Muawiya, in which a small group on the side of truth confronted a much larger, tyrannical army. The martyrdom of the leader has strengthened, rather than weakened, this spirit of resistance. As a result, resistance, struggle, and resilience are core elements of Iranian national identity. 

Another factor strengthening the resilience of the Iranian nation is its eschatological beliefs. In Iran’s Wilayatul Faqih system, Islamic cleric leadership goes beyond politics; it reflects the conviction that they act as representatives of Imam Mahdi before his return. According to Shia political theology, Imam Mahdi is regarded as the hidden Imam expected to return at the end of time to restore justice. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei emphasized that waiting for Imam Mahdi’s return is not passive; it requires active resistance to injustice and tyranny. 

Lessons for Global South Countries

Iran’s foreign policy resistance stands out for several reasons. Firstly, Iran’s confrontation with the U.S. aligns with scholarly views that the U.S. is waning as a superpower. Despite its military and economic constraints, Iran has continued to resist the U.S. through both military attacks and diplomatic maneuvering. Secondly, Iran’s resistance demonstrates that power gaps don’t always lead to submission; instead, such disparities can foster strategic independence and strengthen bargaining positions. Thirdly, Iran’s stance offers a potential model for other Global South countries, proving that opposing a superpower like the U.S. is possible. Despite facing pressures, sanctions, threats, and conflict, Iran has remained resilient, in contrast to many Global South countries that often pursue pragmatic, accommodative, or compromise-oriented foreign policies in international politics.

[opinions expressed personal. ]