US legal framing of Iran war obscures decades of geopolitical entanglements and sanctions-driven cycles of retaliation

Indigenous and traditional Persian frameworks (e.g., concepts of 'defensive jihad' in Shia Islam or pre-Islamic Zoroastrian notions of 'asha'—cosmic order) often frame Iran's military postures as responses to existential threats rather than unprovoked aggression. These perspectives emphasize the role of cultural memory in shaping national security doctrines, where historical grievances (e.g., colonial-era interventions) are treated as legitimate justifications for deterrence. However, these indigenous narratives are systematically excluded from Western legal and media discourses, which privilege secular, state-centric interpretations of conflict.

The US-Iran conflict is rooted in a century of geopolitical manipulation, including the 1953 CIA-backed coup against Mossadegh, the 1980s US support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, and the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which empowered Iran's regional influence. Each cycle of intervention has been followed by punitive measures (e.g., sanctions, cyberattacks) that Iran frames as 'economic warfare,' creating a feedback loop of retaliation. Historical precedents like the 1979 hostage crisis or the 2019 tanker attacks are often decontextualized, treated as isolated acts of 'aggression' rather than symptoms of deeper structural tensions.

In East Asia, the framing of Iran as an 'aggressor' is often contrasted with the region's own experiences of US military presence (e.g., Okinawa, South Korea), where 'aggression' is perceived as a structural feature of US hegemony. African and Middle Eastern scholars frequently draw parallels between US-Iran tensions and Cold War proxy conflicts, highlighting how superpower rivalries play out in regional destabilization. Meanwhile, in South Asia, the narrative of 'justified war' is scrutinized through the lens of nuclear deterrence, where both India and Pakistan have used similar rhetoric to justify their own military postures.

Empirical studies on sanctions regimes (e.g., Iran's 2012-2015 sanctions) demonstrate their devastating impact on civilian health, with a 2013 *The Lancet* study linking sanctions to 13,000 excess deaths in Iran. Research on asymmetric warfare (e.g., RAND Corporation reports) shows that punitive measures often escalate rather than deter conflict, as targeted states adapt through proxy networks or nuclear programs. However, these findings are rarely integrated into legal or policy frameworks, which prioritize state narratives over evidence-based conflict resolution.

Persian poetry and art have long framed conflict as a struggle between light (noor) and darkness (zulumat), with Iran's nuclear program sometimes depicted as a 'sacred shield' against external domination. In Sufi traditions, the concept of 'faqr' (spiritual poverty) is invoked to critique materialistic power structures, including sanctions that impoverish civilians while enriching elites. Western media often dismisses these narratives as 'propaganda,' failing to recognize how art and spirituality shape collective memory and resistance in Iran.

Scenario modeling by the *International Crisis Group* suggests that continued sanctions escalation could lead to a regional arms race, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE pursuing nuclear programs in response to perceived Iranian threats. Alternative futures include a 'controlled détente' where sanctions are gradually lifted in exchange for regional non-proliferation agreements, or a 'proxy war escalation' where conflicts in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon intensify. The most likely near-term scenario, according to *Foreign Affairs* analysis, is a 'frozen conflict' where low-intensity hostilities persist without direct war, but with ongoing economic and cyber warfare.

Iranian women, ethnic minorities (e.g., Kurds, Baloch, Arabs), and laborers bear the brunt of sanctions and militarization, yet their perspectives are excluded from mainstream narratives. In the diaspora, Iranian-Americans and other expatriates often critique both US policies and the Iranian government's authoritarianism, but their voices are sidelined in favor of state-centric analyses. Similarly, in neighboring countries like Iraq or Afghanistan, where US-Iran proxy conflicts play out, local communities' experiences of displacement and violence are rarely centered in Western coverage.