What began as a confrontation in the wider Middle East drifted into a broader dynamic around 2003. After the Iraq invasion, a decision emerged in Tehran to project influence beyond its borders, shaping a new regional calculus. Washington soon faced calls for a collective, military response to these shifting power lines as new actors entered from multiple fronts.
With Hezbollah present in Lebanon and a long history of ties stretching back to the 1980s, Iran sought to build what would later be described as a strategic bloc. This umbrella of militias across the region, centered in Tehran, declared a common enemy in the United States, while Israel remained a historical rival that further bound these actors together.
Iran encouraged the formation of state-backed formations such as the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq and later in Syria. These Shiite militias evolved into a shadow state in Iraq, pushing against American forces while confronting other regional threats. The alliance also extended to Palestinian groups, forging a tighter link with Islamic Jihad and Hamas, and, over time, brought Houthis in Yemen into the fold, creating a network under the supervision of Persian leadership and supported by a coalition structure led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
The defense-oriented explanation offered by Tehran is that the Axis of Resistance is not expansionist but a counterstrategy, sometimes described as a forward-defense approach. Ali Vaez, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, notes that Iran seeks an alternative, deterrence-focused framework rather than direct conquest. He emphasizes that while Tehran remains a pivotal actor, its military power is modest by regional standards, which motivates the reliance on regional militias coordinated around shared interests rather than a single command line.
The picture is nuanced: there are varying degrees of loyalty within this network. Hezbollah in Lebanon is described as closely aligned with Tehran, while the Houthis in Yemen have a more independent track record, occasionally resisting Iranian direction. Arash Azizi, a writer and professor at Clemson University, compares the arrangement to historical blocs where the core leadership provides resources but allows a degree of autonomy among members. The overarching reality is a web of coordination that preserves independence at the local level while pursuing common strategic aims.
spiral in the region
Since Hamas launched an attack on southern Israel in early October, the Axis of Resistance has intensified its activities. The Middle East has felt the pressure on both Israel and the United States. Hezbollah has periodically targeted Israel across the Lebanon border; PMF actions in Iraq have included drone activity aimed at U.S. positions in the north; and the Houthis achieved notable disruption of international maritime traffic in the Red Sea, signaling the reach of this network in regional events.
Observers note that the axis demonstrated a capacity for action while also showing limits. Its stated objectives included pressuring Israel to alter its stance in Gaza and, more broadly, reducing Western influence in the region. Yet, as events unfolded after October 7, the practical gains proved uneven. Washington maintained substantial military weight, and some actors within the network conceded that the coalition’s resilience depended on continued consensus. The durability of the bloc appeared fragile at times, with members signaling that no single participant could be indefinitely sacrificed for the group. The message to outsiders was clear: in this alliance, collaboration exists, but individual actors retain options and autonomy.
Iran comes to the stage
In the early phase of the conflict, most operations were carried out by coalition militias, with Iran often staying on the periphery. Yet a recent sequence of events marked a turning point when Iran launched a trio of ballistic missile strikes against neighboring states within a short span. The strategic rationale, as discussed by analysts, is to deter adversaries and demonstrate resolve in response to perceived aggressions. Some experts argue that Tehran’s approach is a response to prior Israeli actions and U.S. moves, a way to recalibrate regional deterrence dynamics. Others warn that deterrence in this volatile setting risks miscalculations that could escalate conflicts further.
The broader concern touches on the risk of escalation within the Persian Gulf and beyond. Analysts suggest that if a growing circle of decision-makers in Tehran begins to doubt the credibility of Iran’s deterrent posture, there could be a shift toward broader, more explicit strategic signaling. Some caution that such shifts might nudge Iran closer to developing an overt nuclear capability as a perceived ultimate shield, complicating regional security and international diplomacy. The debate centers on balance: how to maintain deterrence without triggering an unintended spiral that could redraw regional calculations for years to come.
The evolving dynamics underline a central question for regional stability: can a coalition anchored in shared interest and local autonomy sustain itself amid diverging national priorities and external pressures? The dialogue among scholars continues to weigh the tradeoffs between restraint, deterrence, and the imperatives of national security. The region remains watched by policymakers who seek to understand how a loose network of militias and allied states might influence events far beyond their borders, shaping the strategic landscape for the foreseeable future.