In recent weeks, a number of American officials have issued a variety of threats against Iran, using different tones and methods. These threats have not only drawn firm responses from officials of the Islamic Republic, but have also triggered a wider regional reaction. Across West Asia, a noticeable wave of support for Iran has taken shape. Prominent figures and groups — including Sheikh Naim Qassem, Secretary-General of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qassim of Bahrain, and Iraq’s Kata'ib Hezbollah — have publicly expressed their backing for Iran and for the Leader of the Islamic Revolution in the face of any potential aggression. Taken together, these positions point to the strengthening of a deep strategic bond between Iran and its surrounding regional environment.
Within this broader landscape, Iran is no longer seen merely as a political ally or financial supporter. It has come to function as a central pillar in an informal regional security order, one in which a threat to Iran is understood as a threat to the entire structure. This order did not appear overnight. It developed gradually over decades, largely in reaction to US military interventions and to what regional actors view as the destabilizing policies of Israel. Over time, this loose alignment has matured and developed a clearer sense of its own interests and identity. As a result, any hostile move against Iran now carries consequences that extend well beyond its borders, raising both the scale of possible responses and the potential costs of escalation.
The support voiced for Iran can be better understood through the idea of collective deterrence. Unlike traditional deterrence models that revolve around a single center of power, this form is built on a network of actors spread across different territories, each with distinct capabilities. That network creates a kind of dispersed strategic depth. For Washington, this makes military and political calculations far more complicated than in the past, because any confrontation with Iran could quickly spill across multiple arenas rather than remain confined to one predictable front.
There is also an important non-military dimension. Statements by religious and social figures in the region bring an identity-based layer into the picture. When a threat to Iran is framed as a threat to a religious authority or to a symbol of political independence, the issue moves beyond a conventional dispute between states. It becomes tied to collective identity and historical memory. In that context, the costs of military action are not only strategic but also political, social, and moral, as reactions may come from broad segments of society, not just governments or armed organizations.
A crucial point often overlooked in Washington is that this regional convergence is not simply the result of orders from Tehran or imposed alignment. It stems from shared experiences — wars, sanctions, economic pressure, and repeated fears of regime-change efforts. Many in the region have drawn the conclusion that weakening Iran would not produce stability, but instead open the door to wider disorder. That is why even symbolic expressions of support carry serious strategic meaning.
All of this suggests that Iran today is viewed not just as an individual state actor, but as a central component of a broader regional balance. The more explicit the threats become, the more visible the cohesion around it appears. That dynamic may prove to be the key factor shaping any future confrontation or engagement involving Iran.
Comment