Empire, War & Resistance | Vijay Prashad Explains Iran-US-Israel Crisis

In this conversation, historian and political thinker Vijay Prashad joins nous to unpack the deeper structures shaping the Iran–Israel–US conflict. Moving beyond headlines, the discussion situates the crisis within longer histories of imperial power, regional restructuring, and ideological contestation.

The episode examines shifting global power dynamics, the systemic logic behind US–Israel actions, Iran’s resilience, the role of narrative in modern warfare, and India’s evolving geopolitical position.

At its core, it asks: is this an exception—or a feature of how modern power operates?

This is not just about a conflict, but about the future of global order, sovereignty, and resistance.

The Shifting Sands of Empire: Rethinking Power in the Iran–US–Israel Crisis

The ongoing confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and Israel is not merely another episode in the long history of West Asian conflict. It marks a deeper rupture—one that compels a rethinking of power, resistance, and the very architecture of the modern global order.

In a wide-ranging and intellectually rich discussion, historian and journalist Vijay Prashad offers a framework that moves beyond surface-level narratives. Instead of viewing the crisis through the familiar lens of military escalation alone, he situates it within longer histories of empire, ideological transformation, and structural violence. What emerges is a far more complex picture—one in which the limits of Western dominance are increasingly visible, and new forms of resistance are reshaping geopolitical realities.

The Limits of “Shock and Awe”

For decades, the strategic doctrine of the United States and its allies has relied heavily on what may be termed the logic of overwhelming force—rapid, high-intensity strikes designed to dismantle adversaries before they can mount a sustained response. This approach, often associated with the “shock and awe” paradigm, presumes that technological superiority and precision targeting can deliver swift political outcomes.

However, the current confrontation with Iran exposes the limits of this model.

Rather than collapsing under pressure, Iran appears to have built a system designed precisely to absorb such shocks. Its political and military structures are layered, decentralized, and resilient. Leadership is not concentrated in a single node that can be eliminated; instead, it is distributed across multiple levels, ensuring continuity even under extreme conditions.

This resilience is not merely institutional—it is also historical and cultural. Iran’s political consciousness, shaped by centuries of struggle and endurance, appears to frame conflict not as an existential rupture but as a condition to be navigated. In this sense, external pressure may consolidate rather than fragment internal cohesion.

Escalation as Strategy, Not Reaction

A defining feature of the current conflict is Iran’s apparent reliance on calibrated escalation rather than immediate retaliation. Instead of mirroring large-scale strikes, responses are measured, layered, and often symbolic in their sequencing.

This approach reflects what analysts describe as an “escalation ladder”—a strategy in which each move tests the adversary’s thresholds while preserving the option to intensify or de-escalate. Such a method allows for strategic ambiguity: it signals capability without exhausting resources.

Equally important is the message embedded in these actions. By targeting or threatening critical nodes—energy routes, maritime chokepoints, or regional infrastructure—Iran is not only responding militarily but also redefining the terrain of conflict. The battlefield expands from territory to systems, from geography to networks.

The Strait of Hormuz and the Politics of Energy

At the heart of this expanded battlefield lies the Strait of Hormuz—one of the most critical arteries of global energy supply. Control, disruption, or even the perception of vulnerability in this region has immediate global consequences.

The strategic significance of such chokepoints highlights a broader transformation in warfare: energy has become both a weapon and a pressure point. In a deeply interconnected global economy, the ability to disrupt supply chains can have cascading effects far beyond the immediate theatre of conflict.

This raises a crucial question: is the contemporary conflict less about territorial dominance and more about controlling the infrastructures that sustain modern life?

India and the Question of Strategic Autonomy

The crisis also casts a revealing light on India’s evolving foreign policy posture. Historically, India’s diplomacy was shaped by a commitment to non-alignment—a principle articulated by figures like Jawaharlal Nehru, who sought to maintain independence amid Cold War rivalries.

In recent years, however, this equilibrium appears to have shifted.

India’s engagement with West Asia—particularly its relationship with Iran—has undergone significant transformation. Decisions in international forums, strategic partnerships, and diplomatic silences have collectively signaled a move away from the older framework of balanced engagement.

This shift is not merely tactical; it reflects deeper changes in how India positions itself within a rapidly evolving global order. The challenge, however, lies in reconciling immediate strategic interests with long-term diplomatic credibility—especially in a region where historical ties and contemporary alignments intersect.

The Ideological Foundations of Modern Conflict

To fully understand the violence unfolding across the region, one must also engage with its ideological underpinnings. Modern conflicts are rarely driven by material interests alone; they are sustained by narratives that define belonging, legitimacy, and sovereignty.

The idea of territorial nationalism—often encapsulated in concepts such as “blood and soil”—has played a significant role in shaping contemporary political identities. In contrast to older, more fluid civilizational frameworks, this model emphasizes exclusivity and control over land.

When combined with advanced military capabilities and global power structures, such ideologies produce forms of violence that are both systemic and normalized.

The Military-Industrial Complex and Structural Violence

Another critical dimension of the current crisis is the role of the global military-industrial complex. Warfare today is not only conducted by states but also sustained by networks of corporations, technologies, and financial interests.

Arms production, surveillance systems, and defense contracts form a vast ecosystem that benefits from prolonged instability. This complicates the moral and political landscape: conflicts are no longer isolated events but embedded within larger economic structures.

Moreover, the influence of these systems extends into media and public discourse, shaping how conflicts are represented and understood. Narratives are curated, dissent is often marginalised, and structural questions are obscured by immediate events.

Beyond the “Cataloguing of Catastrophe”

Perhaps the most profound critique emerging from this analysis concerns the role of intellectuals and public discourse. Too often, contemporary commentary is limited to documenting crises—what might be described as a “cataloguing of catastrophe.”

While documentation is necessary, it is insufficient.

What is required is a deeper engagement with the structures that produce these crises—an intellectual framework capable of connecting history, politics, and economics in meaningful ways. This involves not only critique but also imagination: the ability to envision alternative futures beyond cycles of conflict.

Such an approach demands intellectual humility and cross-traditional dialogue. Whether through materialist analysis, ethical frameworks, or civilizational thought, the task is to move from passive observation to active interpretation.

Conclusion: A World in Transition

The Iran–US–Israel crisis is not simply a regional conflict; it is a reflection of a world in transition. The assumptions that once underpinned global order—unquestioned dominance, technological supremacy, and linear progress—are increasingly being challenged.

What is emerging in their place is a more complex and contested landscape, where power is diffused, strategies are adaptive, and outcomes are uncertain.

In this evolving order, the central question is no longer who controls territory, but who shapes systems—energy, information, finance, and narrative. The answers to this question will define not only the future of West Asia, but the contours of global politics in the decades to come.