IN a dusty frontier town, two seasoned bounty hunters once convinced themselves they had found the easiest job of their lives. A notorious rebel had taken refuge in the hills—a man rumoured to be dangerous, defiant and increasingly influential among the locals. The town’s wealthy patrons wanted him captured, quickly and decisively. The hunters, confident in their weapons and experience, accepted the task without hesitation. “This will be over in a day,” one of them said, polishing his rifle. They set out at dawn, tracking the rebel to a narrow valley surrounded by jagged cliffs. It seemed like the perfect place for an ambush. They cornered him easily or so they thought. But the man did not run. He did not surrender. Instead, he smiled—calmly, almost knowingly.
What followed was not a chase, but a slow unraveling. The hunters soon realized that the valley was not a trap for the rebel—it was a trap for them. The narrow paths they had taken became impossible to navigate under fire. The locals, silent and invisible before, began to emerge—not as spectators, but as allies of the man they had come to capture. Supplies ran thin. Communication with the town broke down. Every attempt to assert control only deepened their isolation. Days turned into weeks. The hunters, once so certain of their strength, found themselves exhausted, surrounded and increasingly desperate. They spoke less of victory and more of escape.
In the end, there was no dramatic capture, no triumphant return. Instead, under the cover of darkness, the two men abandoned their mission altogether—leaving behind their pride, their promises and the illusion that this had ever been an easy fight. It had looked like a good plan. But the story, as it turned out, had other ideas. The unfolding confrontation between the United States and Iran bears an unsettling resemblance to that old tale… The Americans and Israelis initially believed it would conclude swiftly, within days or even hours. The original strategy involved targeting Iran’s leadership, anticipating public protests that would overthrow the government. Things spiraled out of control after the world learned of Iran’s strategic planning to fight America and Israel.
The “Mosaic Defence Strategy” lies at its heart. This doctrine distributes military command among various semi-independent units. The concept is basic yet potent: regional units can maintain operations autonomously if their top leadership or central command is eliminated. This prevents the state from collapsing in the event of a sudden attack and enables it to maintain its resistance over time. Richard Haass, a foreign policy adviser to President George W. Bush, wrote in his newsletter, “Home & Away,” that “Iran has demonstrated a level of resilience and resourcefulness beyond his expectations.”
The war has severely affected Iran, destroying civilian and military infrastructure and causing casualties among leaders and civilians. However, Iran’s determination to retaliate remains strong. This war poses an existential threat to Iranians, who are fighting it with everything they have, as Trita Parsi emphasizes that military confrontation with Iran would likely lead to prolonged, asymmetric resistance.
Iran has experienced unprecedented aerial assaults on its territory. They’ve become increasingly defiant against the attacks, much like a child who initially shies away from or fears a bully. However, when facing an inescapable and immediate threat, he fights back fiercely, even when severely wounded, as he understands that surrendering to the street thug means certain death. Nevertheless, this war has brought unexpected consequences upon the United States. At times, Mr. Trump has responded to the war with intense anger, becoming agitated when circumstances worsen. The Wall Street Journal reported an incident where Trump became rattled and furious after two American airmen were shot down. The impacts include diminishing the American defense strength against rivals like China. According to a report in “The Times,” the United States has depleted its supply of long-range stealth cruise missiles, previously held for a possible conflict with China.
Iran’s demonstrated control over the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for 20% of global oil and LNG, represents the most enduring and detrimental consequence for America. Iran has learned that it can pose a global economic threat, leading to populations voting out their politicians, without needing modern jets, an offensive navy or costly cruise missiles. The war has caused Europeans and NATO to steer clear of joining the conflict, widening the rifts between America and its traditional allies.
In the same way, the GCC nations now understand their extreme vulnerability in a US-Iran conflict if they permit American bases in the area to be used against Iran. Future GCC foreign policy may involve reduced reliance on American security, leading to strategic economic and defense partnerships with China, Pakistan and other influential global players. The war has diminished America’s moral standing and cast doubt on the UN’s influence. Most importantly, this war highlights Pakistan’s status as a key pillar of regional and global stability, a nation that has always acted responsibly when the world needed it most.
This is an opportune moment for the US to strike a deal with Iran, given Pakistan’s efforts to secure a lasting ceasefire and end the current conflict. Given the global siege and the war’s harsh impacts, a deal is currently the sole viable option for both America and Iran. History has shown that wars exhaust nations, but diplomacy rebuilds them—perhaps it is time for both Iran and the United States to choose relief over ruin.
—The writer is Commoner from 44th Common Educationist — Founder of WHI Institute.based in Sargodha.
