by: Nadya Aulia Hafsyah & Sahnes Setiara
Abstract
The discussion titled “Dialektika Chapter I”, organized by SCGS International Relations of Unsoed, examined the escalation of tensions between Iran, the United States, and Israel as a phenomenon better understood as an “invasion” rather than a conventional war. The analysis focused on Iran’s use of economic statecraft through the Strait of Hormuz, the anomaly of leadership in the United States that sidelines the role of the legislative branch, as well as strategies of proxy warfare and the exploitation of Kurdish ethnic issues. This report summarizes the contributions and perspectives of all participants in the discussion in assessing the systemic risks that could emerge if a regime change were to occur in Iran.
Introduction to the Issue and Historical Roots
Rifka Amalia opened the discussion by emphasizing that the current situation is more accurately described as an invasion rather than a war, given the power imbalance between the actors involved. She traced the historical roots back to 1953, referring to Operation Ajax conducted by the CIA and the United Kingdom to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in order to secure control over Iranian oil resources. Dias Pabyantara reinforced this argument by stating that the term “war” is often used to frame what is essentially a conflict or invasion driven by the aggressiveness of the United States and Israel. Regarding domestic politics in the United States, Nadya provided a crucial insight into the Senate’s role and how internal political dynamics shape U.S. foreign policy toward Iran. Ultimately, the Senate approved the U.S. invasion of Iran.
Economic Statecraft and Energy Instruments
Rifka explained Iran’s strategy of utilizing the Strait of Hormuz as an instrument of economic statecraft. By potentially disrupting global energy routes, Iran could pressure oil-consuming countries to push the United States toward de-escalation. Hegar, Najib, and Ian added that the primary motivation of the United States remains energy security for its industrial needs, which explains why intervention in oil-rich countries has often become a recurring pattern in U.S. foreign policy. Dias further highlighted the phenomenon of a “Leadership Anomaly,” in which U.S. foreign policy becomes highly personalistic, frequently bypassing institutional checks, such as those by the Senate, in favor of the leader’s personal image and interests.
Proxy War and the Potential for Regime Change
The dynamics of proxy warfare also became a major topic of discussion. Bintang highlighted how external powers often utilize third parties to fight on their behalf in conflict zones, a strategy frequently employed by the United States to pursue its national interests. However, in this particular conflict, the United States faces difficulties in establishing a proxy war because it lacks support from other countries, including Spain. Initially, Danu pointed out the possibility that the United States seeks regime change in Iran. Ifa then raised a follow-up question about what the United States actually aims to achieve through such regime change and whether there are examples in the Middle East of similar actions.
Dias responded by referring to Afghanistan, which was previously invaded by the United States. According to him, the intervention significantly altered Afghanistan’s political practices, including the introduction of greater involvement of women in political life. Danu added another example from the Rojava model in Northern Syria, where Kurdish groups were armed and organized, including female militias, as a form of U.S. proxy force. Historically, such strategies have been used to create internal divisions within targeted states, including Iran, and to reshape the political culture of local societies. Rifka then questioned whether the Kurdish people would once again fall into the promise of a “special homeland” offered by the United States, or whether they would learn from the history of past betrayals.
Social Resilience and Internal Dynamics
Regarding social conditions, Nabil raised a question about whether a U.S. invasion would unify the Iranian population or instead trigger a new revolution. Ifa provided a deeper perspective on Iranian society’s resilience. She recounted information from an Indonesian individual currently in Tehran, who reported that the situation in the city remained stable, with no signs of mass panic and daily life continuing as usual. She further explained that although Iran is a multicultural society, external threats such as invasion could actually become a turning point for national unity, particularly when combined with significant international support.
Strategic Implications
- The risk of regime change as a threat to Iran’s stability.
The example of Afghanistan demonstrates how U.S.-led regime change in the Middle East has previously created power vacuums and significantly altered the political practices of local societies.
- The Strait of Hormuz is an effective economic weapon.
Iran maintains control over a strategic chokepoint capable of generating global economic pressure, which could compel international actors to restrain U.S. aggression and push for the cessation of the invasion.
- Personalistic dominance in U.S. foreign policy is sidelining the Senate.
The direction of U.S. foreign policy appears to be shaped more by the personal ambitions and egos of political leaders than by institutional checks from the Senate, which often includes members from the same political party as the president.
- Proxy warfare and ethnic issues as persistent destabilization strategies.
The use of internal actors, such as Kurdish ethnic dynamics, may continue to be utilized by the United States as a strategy to weaken domestic cohesion, disrupt social conditions, and reshape the everyday political life of Iranian society.
The discussion concluded that the complexity of the Iran, United States, and Israel conflict involves a combination of historical grievances, energy politics, and the strong influence of individual leadership in shaping foreign policy decisions. If the path of invasion continues, the conflict carries extremely high humanitarian risks and could lead to broader regional instability.