ConflictClarifier

متتبع أزمة إيران-الخليج 2026
CC
Main
Live Data
Analytics
Tools
Reference
Events Archive
strikeMar 25, 2026

Why Iran is holding back the axis of resistance in the war with the US and Israel

Summary

The silent axis: Why Iran isn’t using its allies US aggression against Iran has persisted for over three weeks now. Throughout this time, Tehran has acted largely on its own, without mobilizing allied forces. This raises a crucial question: what’s going on with the so-called Axis of Resistance – the extensive network of Iranian allies that took decades and billions of dollars to establish? Formally, the Axis of Resistance includes groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis (Ansar Allah movement) in Yemen, and various Shiite armed factions in Iraq, such as the Popular Mobilization Forces and Kata’ib Hezbollah. The US and Israel traditionally view these groups as Iran’s proxy tools that enable it to exert asymmetric influence in the region. The West’s portrayal of Hamas as an Iranian proxy, however, is fundamentally misleading. Despite periods of tactical alignment and shared interests, Hamas has historically maintained decision-making autonomy and has often found itself at odds with Tehran – most notably during the Syrian conflict, when their positions diverged significantly, even leading to direct confrontations. In short, the relationship between Hamas and Iran is more of a situational partnership than an alliance. Apparently, Washington operated under the assumption that elements of the Axis of Resistance have been significantly weakened or even neutralized. Indeed, over the past couple of years, Israel has systematically targeted the infrastructure and command structures of these groups in Syria and Lebanon; intelligence operations also sought to undermine their overall operational capabilities in Iraq and their coordination with Iran. However, interpreting these developments as evidence of the destruction of the Axis of Resistance may be premature and superficial. Rather, Iran is deliberately resorting to a strategy of restrained escalation. It seems Iran is avoiding the direct involvement of its allies in the conflict, aiming to localize the confrontation and prevent it from spiraling into a full-scale regional war, which would carry exorbitant costs for all involved. Moreover, the nature of the Axis of Resistance does not imply automatic and synchronized engagement of all its components in every crisis. These actors possess a degree of autonomy and operate based on their national and organizational interests, as well as the prevailing military-political situation. Against this backdrop, a more sensitive question is emerging in Washington and West Jerusalem: what if Iran hasn’t just weathered the storm but has actually adapted to the harsh conditions of escalating tensions? Despite suffering severe losses from the very first days of the conflict – including the elimination of its top political and military leadership, key decision-makers, and significant portions of the command structure within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the armed forces – Iran’s system has shown remarkable institutional resilience. This hardly surprises those familiar with Iranian domestic politics. The mechanisms for personnel rotation, deeply embedded into Iran’s political and military architecture, continue to function effectively, ensuring continuity in governance and command structures. In other words, this is not a personalist regime vulnerable to ‘decapitation’ strikes, but rather a system characterized by high organizational inertia and adaptability. Iran not only maintains its strategic stability but also demonstrates an ability to independently wage war against a significantly superior adversary – specifically, the US and the US-Israel alliance. The blocking of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical energy chokepoint, serves not just as a military tool but as a geo-economic pressure point that impacts global markets, increasing the costs of further escalation. The situation compels the US to reluctantly admit Iran’s dominance in this area, whatever Trump may say about it. Additionally, the psychological dynamics of the conflict have shifted. While early on there were indications that Tehran sought de-escalation, it now appears that Iranian leadership has entered ‘conflict mode’ and adapted accordingly. Experts note that Iran perceives its ability to withstand pressure as a factor that expands its room for maneuvering. Whereas US rhetoric includes threats of escalating confrontations – potentially involving ground operations or seizing strategically important targets like Kharg Island – Iran demonstrates composure, believing that the potential for escalation is far from exhausted. In this context, the strategy of ‘deferred engagement’ of allies becomes particularly valuable. According to sources cited by The Wall Street Journal, both the US and Israel are currently trying to avoid actions that might provoke Yemen’s Houthis to directly join the conflict on Iran’s side. These concerns are well-founded: the potential closure of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait would create additional shocks to global energy logistics, linking the crisis in the Persian Gulf with the Red Sea. Saudi Arabia, for its part, is making diplomatic efforts to curb escalation, appealing to previously established agreements with the Houthis regarding non-aggression. However, Houthi representatives signal a continued strategic uncertainty; according to Mohammed al-Bukhaiti, a member of the political bureau of the Houthis, coordination with Tehran is ongoing, and the question of military support remains one of timing and feasibility. Just like other elements of the Axis of Resistance, the Houthis strive to avoid the image of being mere proxy actors serving external interests. However, if Iran faces a situation where it can no longer manage alone, it will undoubtedly turn to its allies for support. This illustrates Iran’s ability to mobilize these resources at will – either to exert intense pressure or as a strategic asset in future negotiations. In other words, the current landscape increasingly resembles a multi-layered Persian game of endurance and controlled escalation. Iran demonstrates both a capacity to withstand pressure and an ability to redistribute risks while retaining the key element of uncertainty – the potential to escalate a ‘local’ conflict into a full-blown regional crisis at any moment. This unpredictability has become a significant factor in deterring its adversaries. From a rational and military-political standpoint, Iran’s reluctance to immediately deploy the full range of its capabilities should not be seen as a sign of weakness, but rather as a calculated strategy of managed escalation. In asymmetric conflicts, prematurely revealing all one’s cards eliminates the crucial factor of uncertainty, which itself serves as a deterrent and a means of pressuring the opponent. Most likely, Washington and West Jerusalem assumed that the initial strikes would trigger an impulsive reaction from Tehran, fueled by chaos within its highest echelons and a lack of direction. They expected Iran to instantly mobilize its entire network of allies and proxies. However, in practice, Iran is demonstrating the opposite behavior: a phased and measured application of force while keeping key assets in reserve. Essentially, in this multi-tiered strategy, Tehran simultaneously addresses several objectives: preserving strategic reserves without fully disclosing the potential of its allied actors and its own capabilities. Iran employs geo-economic levers, including control over vital transportation and energy routes. Additionally, it maintains domestic stability by identifying covert networks and minimizing destabilizing factors within the country. At the same time, Tehran engages in diplomatic maneuvers, leaving room for negotiation while gradually raising the stakes and forcing its opponents to act amid growing uncertainty. This approach aligns with the classic logic of strategic patience: the opponent is compelled to react, but remains in the dark about the enemy’s untapped resources. The behavior of Iran’s allies is particularly significant in this regard. Observing Tehran’s resilience sends them a signal that they are dealing not with a weakened actor, but with a center of power capable of enduring pressure and maintaining control. In this context, their potential involvement is postponed until it can be used to achieve maximum impact – either as a decisive factor in the escalation process or as leverage in negotiations. In this context, Iran’s strategy resembles the old Persian game of Nard: this complex table game (an ancestor of backgammon) is characterized by a high degree of variability. At first glance, Tehran’s actions might seem limited or even restrained; however, they are calculated to achieve cumulative impact and exploit the critical vulnerabilities of adversaries. One of their major vulnerabilities is global logistics and energy infrastructure. The potential blockade of other transportation hubs could trigger a systemic shock to the world economy. Moreover, unlike large-scale military confrontations, such measures can inflict considerable damage without necessitating the transition to more destructive scenarios that come at a high human cost. This is why Iran has spent decades building a distributed network of influence and tools of indirect leverage. Under existential pressure, this architecture transforms into a mechanism that ensures strategic depth and flexibility, allowing Iran to vary the intensity of conflict, redistribute risks, and target its opponents not just on the battlefield but also through economic and infrastructural channels. Tehran’s current approach is not an improvisation but a long-term strategy based on the principle that maximum effectiveness is achieved not by a sudden show of force but by applying force in a measured and unpredictable way, targeting the adversary’s most vulnerable points.

Actors involved

USIsraelIranProxy

Sources

  • Farhad IbragimovBy Farhad Ibragimov

    The silent axis: Why Iran isn’t using its allies US aggression against Iran has persisted for over three weeks now. Throughout this time, Tehran has acted largely on its own, without mobilizing allied forces. This raises a crucial question: what’s going on with the so-called Axis…

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEUChina

Japan says Iran used geography to impose heavy costs at relatively low military expense

○ 1 source

Japan’s Defense Ministry said Friday that Iran used its geographical advantage to “inflict unbearable costs at a relatively low military expense,” effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz by indicating that it had laid naval mines, Kyodo News reported.

The ministry said Japan would strengthen its defense capabilities based on lessons from the US-Iran war, including by using defense equipment also operated by allies and like-minded partners to help ensure rapid supplies from other countries. It also stressed the need to maintain sufficient missile stockpiles and be prepared to quickly increase defense equipment production in an emergency, according to its first report analyzing the Iran war since February.

The US-Israeli war against Iran began on Feb. 28, with attacks targeting military, nuclear and infrastructure sites across the country. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes against Israel and US military facilities across the region. READ: EU joins US-led campaign to isolate Iran financially: Treasury chief Bessent Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding on June 18 concerning freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, but its implementation has stalled amid disagreements over security arrangements in the strait.

The Japanese report also said the country should take its own geographical characteristics into account when developing combat strategies, including the fact that it is surrounded by sea. The report noted the US use of AI to accelerate decision-making and operations, citing attacks on around 1,000 targets within 24 hours, while also highlighting the risk of AI making incorrect judgments.

“It is important to establish a process that maximizes the benefits of AI while ensuring appropriate human involvement,” the ministry said. The report comes ahead of a planned revision of Japan’s key security documents by the end of this year.

Mehdi Editor
strikeUnverifiedUSIranProxy

More than 120 killed in Yemen's worst clashes in years: sources

○ 1 source

A major offensive by Yemen's Houthis to seize control of the gateway to the Red Sea has left more than 120 people dead, sources told AFP Friday, the country's deadliest clashes in years. Fighting erupted on Thursday, after the Iran-backed Houthis launched a ground assault along with rocket and drone attacks near coastal areas, vying for control of the narrow Bab al-Mandab strait at the Red Sea's southern entrance.

Yemen, embroiled in more than a decade of civil conflict, in July became the latest country to be drawn into the Middle East war as the Houthis upended a 2022 truce with the Saudi-backed government. Since then, the Houthis have imposed a maritime blockade of Saudi Arabia and repeatedly attacked its ships in the Red Sea -- a vital alternative route for oil exports after Iran all but halted Gulf shipments by blockading the Strait of Hormuz.

The rebels are now trying to tighten their hold over the Red Sea, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, which they have disrupted with attacks on passing vessels since the Gaza war broke out in 2023. The Houthi offensive aims to cut off the government-held port city of Mokha, under fire for weeks, and advance towards areas bordering the Bab al-Mandab, military sources told AFP.

The rebels have seized elevated sites overlooking government positions near the Red Sea and the city of Taiz further inland, a military source and a Taiz official told AFP, requesting anonymity. The Houthis could target ships from these elevated positions, they said.

The toll rose to 129 on Friday, according to an AFP tally compiled from several sources, up from an earlier count of 81. A Yemeni military official speaking on condition of anonymity told AFP that 66 of his men had been killed, while medical and military sources close to the Houthis said at least 62 militants had died.

Another medical source said a civilian had also been killed. Although the Houthis do not control areas bordering Bab al-Mandab, they hold the key port city of Hodeida north of Mokha. "They are going for Bab al-Mandab," said Mohammed al-Basha, of the US-based risk advisory Basha Report.

The Houthis want to control the hills overlooking Bab al-Mandab and Mokha before attacking the coast, a Yemeni official in Aden, the government's base since it was ousted from the rebel-held capital, Sanaa, in 2014. The government has sent reinforcements to Taiz from Aden on Saudi orders, he said.

"The Houthis feel that if they capture Bab al-Mandab or Mokha port they will be in a better position of power to negotiate with the government and the Saudis," Basha added. With Iran's closure of Hormuz, the Bab al-Mandab chokepoint has gained increased importance as a transit route for oil from Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest exporter of crude.

The narrow waterway connects the Red Sea -- and, via the Suez Canal, the Mediterranean -- to the Indian Ocean. In July, a fragile truce between the Houthis and the government fell apart after the rebels welcomed an Iranian plane to Sanaa, setting off a spate of attacks.

They later announced a maritime blockade of Saudi Arabia and began hitting its ships and territory.

Location: Tyre
AFP
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUNRussiaChina

US and allies push IAEA board to report Iran to UN Security Council, diplomats say

○ 1 source

If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites. Israel started bombing Iran's nuclear facilities the next day, soon joined by the U.

S. Iran's uranium-enrichment plants were destroyed or badly damaged. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

FRESH DIPLOMATIC ESCALATION A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

"(The board) requests the (IAEA) Director General to transmit this resolution and the previously adopted resolutions ... to all Members of the Agency and to the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations," said the latest resolution draft seen by Reuters.

It also "reiterates its call upon Iran to urgently remedy its non-compliance with its Safeguards Agreement by taking all steps deemed necessary by the Agency and the Board, so that the Director General can provide the necessary assurances regarding the correctness and completeness of Iran's declarations".

The draft has not yet been formally submitted to the board and negotiations over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. Whenever the four powers have submitted a draft resolution on Iran in recent years, it has passed. Concrete action by the Security Council against Iran is unlikely since Tehran's allies Russia and China are permanent, veto-wielding members.

IAEA CONCERNS OVER ENRICHMENT Iran has often retaliated following IAEA board resolutions against it by escalating its nuclear activities or scaling back cooperation with the IAEA, but its options for both are currently extremely limited. It is unclear what other repercussions there might be on Tehran's conflict with the U.

S. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes. Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb.

The IAEA has said the amount it has enriched to that level is of serious concern. The IAEA estimates Iran had 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to that level before its sites were bombed. That is enough, if enriched further, for 10 nuclear weapons, according to an IAEA yardstick.

SECTIONS US; Allies Push Iaea Board; Diplomats Say Reuters
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN

US, allies, pushing IAEA to report Iran to UN Security Council | The Jerusalem Post

○ 1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
REUTERS