The gloves are off and the ceasefire is in trouble as the United States and Iran traded strikes, once again, on July 8, over the safe passage of commercial ships across the Strait of Hormuz.
However, looking beyond this flareup, the recent visuals coming out of Iran are extraordinary. After more than 40 days of sustained attacks by the combined military power of the U.S. and Israel, the country is projecting an image of pride, defiance, and resilience. The funeral of its slain Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, drew millions of mourners and high-level representatives from Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Türkiye, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Armenia, and several other countries. Even the Taliban government in Afghanistan was represented. Notably absent were the entire Western bloc, much of Africa, and some regional countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait, which bore the brunt of Iran’s retaliation during the war.
Did the scenes witnessed reflect the image of a nation defeated? Did the millions of people on the streets, eager to catch a final glimpse of their assassinated leader, appear coerced or forced to mourn? Did the visuals coming out of Tehran and other parts of Iran reflect a nation that is economically bankrupt? The answer to all these questions is a bold ‘no’. What was on display was a nation eager to use this opportunity to tell the world that it is still standing on its own — and may be more powerful, confident and resilient than ever before.
The regime has not only survived the war but has emerged stronger than before, with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in full control. Its nuclear programme still remains off the table and there is no mention of its ballistic missile programme in the 14-point Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. The windfall gains from removal of sanctions, sale of crude oil and natural gas, a defreezing of its money and assets and the monetisation of the Strait of Hormuz promise an economic revival for Iran, although some of it may now be under question after the rapidly escalating situation. This resurrection of Iran almost feels like a revolution, and is a reminder of how a new nation, the ‘Islamic Republic of Iran’ emerged from the Iranian Revolution of 1979, overcoming the threats and challenges from a monarchy supported and abetted by the West.
The 1979 revolution was the culmination of a year-long protests against the Iranian regime, ignited by multiple factors, mainly political repression and economic hardships. There was also a strong undercurrent to reclaim Iran’s cultural and religious legacy which had been suppressed by the pro-western Shah regime. The combined effect created an unprecedented popular movement led by Ayatollah Khomeini, the exiled cleric and former philosophy professor from Qom, who had been banished in 1964 for opposing the Shah’s reform programme. The movement ultimately overthrew Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
The Shah and his family fled Iran in January 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini returned on February 1 to a jubilant welcome. 10 days later, Iran’s armed forces declared their neutrality, effectively ending the Shah’s rule. On April 1, following a successful referendum, Khomeini proclaimed Iran as the Islamic Republic. The new republic drew its legitimacy from three pillars: restoring Iran’s national pride, establishing theological discourse and Islamic governance, and promising economic progress and social justice. However, the 1979 hostage crisis, the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, prolonged nuclear programme-related sanctions, and support for regional militia proxies severely tested the country’s economic and political resilience.
Why is the current post-war situation akin to a second revolution? Like in 1979, this war too has led to the emergence of a stronger and a nationalist regime. However, unlike 1979, when an earlier regime had to be overthrown, this time, the regime, despite being hit badly and its Supreme Leader assassinated, has emerged stronger as it has survived. Once again, key issues such as national pride, dignity, strength and unity are being made the central pillars. And the millions of people on the street now mirror the visuals of millions on the streets of Iran in February 1979 when they welcomed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini after his return from exile. And, like in 1979, this revolution too promises to bring in long-lasting changes in Iran and the region.
The most prominent change is obviously the security architecture. Soon after the 1979 revolution, the nations in the Gulf had formed the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in 1981, to forge a common platform to fight the threat from a revolutionary Iran. The region turned to the U.S. which then carried out its most extensive and permanent military deployment after the Second World War — it stationed thousands of troops and hundreds of military assets across multiple bases, promising a security umbrella against Iran (and Iraq).
Well, this war has shattered this myth with the punishment and huge losses that American bases and the countries in the region had to suffer from Iranian strikes. Countries in the region are not only frustrated with the failed U.S. security assurances but are looking at alternatives to secure themselves in the future, including maybe, making peace with Iran.
The second issue is the regime’s survival which had been at its weakest in the past few years due to economic sanctions and growing frustration within over its enforcement of Islamic laws, especially against women. The most recent protests in December 2025, ignited over severe inflation and job losses and massive devaluation of its national currency Rial (1.54 million Rials traded for one U.S. dollar) posed one of the most severe threats to the regime, one which the U.S. too attempted to support and ignite. However, it failed as it was suppressed by a brutal crackdown by the regime. Even the slain Supreme Leader’s advanced age and declining health had raised questions about the regime’s ability to retain control after his death. However, those doubts have now been consigned to history, with the regime emerging stronger and more firmly in control.
The third important factor is identity. If the first revolution gave the nation a ‘Religion First” ideological identity, this war has brought national pride to the fore and made it the primary agent of resilience and defiance. Iran’s ability to absorb the punishment of military strikes, endure the pain and then strike back effectively, have brought people and nation together.
The fourth factor has to relate to the economy. A nation which has survived and sustained under severe economic sanctions for almost three decades, now faces a pleasant possibility of huge influx of money into its coffers thanks to a possible easing of sanctions, defreezing of assets and sale of petroleum products. The monetisation of the Strait of Hormuz is obviously a bonus and now a powerful negotiating instrument with Iran.
India clearly has a decision to make. The war marked India’s definite and noticeable tilt toward the Israel-U.S.-United Arab Emirates bloc, with several decisions that many analysts have found difficult to explain or defend. By sending a Minister-led delegation to the funeral, India may have walked a diplomatic tightrope. Going forward, however, it will have to make a strategic choice on how to balance its ties with Iran and the wider Gulf region, which itself appears deeply divided after the war.
Iran is resurgent and is unlikely to let go of the opportunity that this war has provided it. The scale of the irreversible changes unfolding in Iran and the region may become clearer over time. However, one thing is certain — the security and economic landscape of the region has changed forever. How Iran uses this opportunity, and how the region responds, will shape the destiny of its people and the region for decades to come.
Rajeev Agarwal is a Senior Research Consultant at the CRF, Delhi, and the author of the book, Between Tehran and Tel Aviv – Gaza’s Story of Unending War
Published - July 09, 2026 12:16 am IST