Atul Singh: Welcome to FO° Podcasts. I’m Atul Singh, the founder, CEO and editor-in-chief of Fair Observer. With me today is a truly remarkable fellow, Khosrow Isfahani. He is an open-source investigator for the Atlantic Council in Washington, DC. He has worked for the BBC as a journalist. He studied physics — a subject not extremely popular, especially in the journalistic world — and he grew up in Tehran, although ancestrally, his great-great-grandfather, or great-grandfather — I’m mixing it up. Correct me, Khosrow, later.

Khosrow Isfahani: I always mix it up myself as well. 

Atul Singh: (Laughs) Came from Isfahan. So, Khosrow, what a pleasure. What an honor. Welcome.

Khosrow Isfahani: Thank you, Atul, for your kind introduction. That was just beyond and above. Thank you very much. Happy to be with you.

Atul Singh: Happy to introduce an Iranian, ha! Farsi was the official language of India for 800 years. And today, we will be discussing Iran’s Axis of Resistance. I repeat: yes, Iran’s Axis of Resistance. And the topic of the podcast is “Iran’s Axis of Resistance Is in Shambles: What Next?” So, without further ado, Khosrow, tell us: What is this Axis of Resistance?

Khosrow Isfahani: So, the ayatollahs in Tehran who run this rogue state — that from the get-go of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 has gone head-to-head with neighboring countries and international powers — have constantly found themselves in a jam, constantly fearing for the continuation of their rule over this nation of 90 million people. One of the pillars of their security doctrine, their response to outside threats as they perceive it, has been the Axis of Resistance. What is Axis of Resistance? It is a network of terrorist groups — and sometimes they are called militant groups — and allied states that, most of the time, are allied against the United States as well. Who are the members of this Axis of Resistance? Let’s start with Iran’s neighbors. In Iraq, you have the Hashd al-Shaabi — the Popular Mobilization Units, the PMU, or sometimes PMF. You have Houthi rebels in Yemen. You have smaller militia groups that are highly controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, IRGC. The small militant groups under its banner are Fatemiyoun and Zainebiyoun. The first one is made up of Afghan refugees that the IRGC forced into submission and into serving its wars abroad with the promise of citizenship. And Zainabiyoun is made up of Pakistanis.

Atul Singh: Are both of these populations Shia? Are the Afghans Hazaras?

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes.

Atul Singh: Or are the Afghans Hazaras, and the Pakistanis Shia refugees from Pakistan?

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes. And in both cases, these are marginalized people who try to find refuge or some pocket of safety in Iran. And when they arrive in Iran, they face persecution from the state. They are barred from using banking services, accessing education, healthcare services. And this sinister state that the Islamic Republic is uses this fertile ground for recruiting these poor souls, to make them into soldiers for its adventurism around the region.

Atul Singh: Now, as I understand it, Bashar al-Assad — who’s now deposed, he has fled — he was an Alawi, an Alawite. He was Shia. The Houthis are Ismailis, if I’m correct — they are also Shia. So in a way, this is Iran’s Shia Crescent, extending all the way from Israel’s border to Hazara territory in Afghanistan.

Khosrow Isfahani: So yes, there is an ideological element to the creation of the Axis of Resistance, but—

Atul Singh: Religious, I would say, even more than ideological.

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes, yes, that would be a fair framing of it. But when you look at the Palestinian groups that have aligned themselves with the Islamic Republic, you would find groups like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the General Command — that was a leftist group with leftist agendas, not at all religious, that literally has been one of the linchpins of Iran’s network of terror near the Israeli border.

Atul Singh: So it’s not just religion — it’s broader than that. But in the Palestinian case, that’s perhaps because Israel has backed them firmly, and no other Arab state is doing so right now.

Khosrow Isfahani: In the case of Iran and its relations with Palestinian groups, it’s not about the Palestinian people or religion. It’s just that the Islamic Republic sees Israel as its eternal enemy. As a mortal enemy that’s either the Islamic Republic or Israel should not exist for this war between them to end. That’s constantly present in the propaganda of the Islamic Republic. So anyone who is fighting against Israel the Islamic Republic sees it as an ally.

Atul Singh: And they join the Axis of Resistance.

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes.

Ideology vs. realpolitik: Iran’s security doctrine

Atul Singh: So, alright, I understand now what is the Axis of Resistance. But what purpose does it serve? What is Iran’s security doctrine?

Khosrow Isfahani: So let me just add two points about what the Axis of Resistance is, and I promise I will answer that question as well. In addition to these groups, Syria under Bashar al-Assad was one of the main pillars of the Axis of Resistance. And the crown jewel of the Axis of Resistance used to be Hezbollah in Lebanon. These two main elements in the Axis have been reduced to rubble over the past couple of months, as well as Hamas, as well as the ouster of Assad from Syria, which has changed the whole region’s face. But back to your question: What purpose did the Axis of Resistance serve? It is a combination of, again, ideology and the realpolitik of this ideologically-driven authoritarian state that we have in Iran. So after the Islamic Revolution, we had an extended eight-year war between Iran and its neighboring country, Iraq. It was a brutal war. Hundreds of thousands of people on both sides were killed.

Atul Singh: 1980 to 1988 — Saddam Hussein on one side, Ayatollah Khomeini on the other side.

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes. And during this period, Iran and its leaders found themselves isolated. The war comes at the heels of the hostage situation — forces allied with the Ayatollah Khomeini taking American diplomats in Tehran hostage for over a year. It comes at the same time that Khomeini is exporting the Islamic Revolution around the world. So when there is a war, when Iran is under attack, no one is willing to sell weapons to Tehran. So in response, the Islamic Republic has developed a multi-pronged defense strategy. A core element of it — they took a page out of the Soviet book — they have moved the periphery of the war away from mainland Iran. They describe it as “strategic depth” in Iranian defense language.

Atul Singh: Well, Pakistan also obsesses about strategic depth, and that is why it has funded and supported first the Mujahideen and then the Taliban: to have security in its backyard and an ally against India. So that seems to be a common obsession.

Khosrow Isfahani: And to a great extent, it has been effective for a rogue state like the Islamic Republic that has constantly, over the past four decades, sought WMDs. It has kept this regime in power and safe from outside aggression, to a great extent. So one is this Axis of Resistance, that was one of the main pillars of the Islamic Republic’s security doctrine. The other two is self-sufficiency through development of conventional weapons. What are the examples of that? The ballistic missile projects, the drone projects. These have been ongoing since the inception of the Islamic Republic.

Atul Singh: And these are conventional weapons?

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes. And over the past couple of years, we have seen the Islamic Republic exporting these weapons to other countries, including Russia, which has used the Iran-made weapons for war crimes against the Ukrainians. So when you look at the wider map of the world, you see the footprint of Iran whenever there is death and destruction. Let’s get back to our main topic.

Missiles, drones and nuclear threats

Atul Singh: There’s also the WMD program. That’s also part of the security doctrine.

Khosrow Isfahani: Exactly. Since the days—

Atul Singh: And that basically means the nuclear program?

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes.

Atul Singh: Also, I suspect chemical, too?

Khosrow Isfahani: There have been aspirations of acquiring chemical weapons. At some point during the Iran–Iraq War, one of the senior IRGC commanders even was looking into making a laser weapon that can shoot laser beams from space at adversaries and destroy countries. So they have looked at every possible scenario.

Atul Singh: Did they succeed?

Khosrow Isfahani: No. That was very cartoonish of him.

Atul Singh: Was he reading too many science fiction novels?

Khosrow Isfahani: I am assuming that’s where the root of that idea was. But on a more serious note, the Islamic Republic has sought weapons of mass destruction. There has been concerted efforts within the Islamic Republic’s establishment to create nuclear weapons. Over the years, there have been periods that this program has been put on pause, but it has always been at least on the back burner. And in recent weeks, with the collapse of the Axis of Resistance, the Islamic Republic has been left with two options when it comes to maintaining its security: One is expansion of its conventional weapons programs. Over the past couple of months, they have seen multiple tests and drills inside Iran where new drones were unveiled. Allegedly, ballistic missiles were tested. These are all signaling to the world that “we are still in the game, we are not bowing out and we are pursuing all these options.” At the same time, a couple of weeks ago, in negotiations with European counterparts, Iranian diplomats for the first time — I emphasize, for the first time — threatened their counterparts that Iran might change its nuclear doctrine. Over the years, they have stuck to this talking point that Iran doesn’t seek a nuclear weapon. But now they are openly saying that they might make their leap. So we are facing this new reality.

Collapse of the Axis and economic strain

Atul Singh: I see. So that’s the security doctrine: Basically, have deterrents in the form of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction, move the locus of conflict away from the Iranian heartland, have a strong periphery which acts as the outer wall — the outer wall of a fort — to defend Iran and secure the great Islamic Revolution of 1979. Now, all of that makes sense. However, as you yourself pointed out earlier, the Axis of Resistance has collapsed. Hamas is weak.

Khosrow Isfahani: Its operational capabilities have been reduced.

Atul Singh: Yeah, Hezbollah has been decapitated. The leadership at least has been decapitated. And Bashar al-Assad is cooling his fine derrière in icy Moscow. So how is Iran coping with the new reality?

Khosrow Isfahani: It’s doubling down on the two programs. One: the expansion of the conventional weapons program.

Atul Singh: Such as drones, missiles and now, of course, a greater show of force.

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes. We have had multiple drills inside Iran that they are trying to project an image of power and control, that nothing has changed and Iran is still capable of sending off if there is war. Literally not a single week passes without a senior Iranian military official telling the press that if there is aggression against Iran, it will face a decisive response. So that’s one element. And on the other hand, there is the threat of acquiring a nuclear weapon. As I mentioned earlier, they are constantly buzzing about making the leap for a nuclear weapon. And I just want to remind you: A senior Iranian official a couple of years ago described that Iran might act like a cornered cat. “It doesn’t want a nuclear weapon, but if you corner a cat, you cannot predict what it does next.” As broken as that rationale is, and as somber as that image would be for the world, this is the mindset of the ayatollahs ruling Iran.

Atul Singh: Right. So the ayatollahs might be cornered cats and might want to spend a lot of money on programs and defense, but the big question arises: Where is the money coming from?

Khosrow Isfahani: So the main source of the money that Iran has for its military expenditure is its revenue from oil and gas exports. The main customers of that: China. Syria used to be a customer, but the payments weren’t on time. Same with Iraq. So that’s where the money is coming from.

Atul Singh: So China is sending the money that is keeping aloft Iran?

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes. But the issue is, a large portion of this money is not being spent on anything. The ayatollahs are constantly in fear of a protracted war, of a foreign attack, so they are saving this money for that possible attack — and at the same time, lavishly spending it on weapons development. And at the same time, a lot of them — and their children — are living lavish lives in Iran, while the rest of the country is suffering in absolute poverty.

Atul Singh: So in a way, the ayatollahs have become the new Shah of Iran?

Khosrow Isfahani: I wouldn’t go down that road, and I wouldn’t make that comparison.

Atul Singh: They did throw a huge party in Persepolis — $800 million on god knows what.

Khosrow Isfahani: Again, different time, different context. So I wouldn’t compare these two rulers with each other in any form or shape.

Atul Singh: You know, I mean, I come from India. The Taj Mahal was built for an Iranian woman, and it caused famine and arguably death of thousands if not millions. So we are used to Iranian opulence!

Khosrow Isfahani: If I were to compare the approach of the ayatollahs to the economy and how they are wasting the resources of a very proud nation, it would be what the North Korean dictators are doing. Nothing trickles down to the people. People suffer, they stay in power.

Civil unrest and the war on women

Atul Singh: Excellent. And I guess it is that suffering that is causing increased frequency of civil unrest in Iran? We’ve had news about women protesting, we’ve had news about young people protesting. If Iran is using its scarce cash on military expenditure and in corruption, then will this lead to an intensification of this unrest?

Khosrow Isfahani: So the thing is, over the past couple of years — mostly, we can mark from 2016, 2017 — we have seen a shift in Iranian society. In the past, we have had multiple cycles of protests, but they were happening in cycles that there were gaps between them — around 10 years. When you look at the years after 2016, the gap is not even a year. So, people are on the streets over water shortage, fuel shortage, food shortage, food crisis.

Atul Singh: Wasn’t there a big protest over fuel prices in 2019?

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes. In 2019, the government of so-called reformist President Hassan Rouhani increased fuel prices three times overnight.

Atul Singh: Why?

Khosrow Isfahani: Because they argued they cannot subsidize fuel anymore. Some economists—

Atul Singh: They were subsidizing their own RMs.

Khosrow Isfahani: There you go. And spending the riches of this country on their adventurism abroad. So in 2019, when they tripled fuel prices, people took to the streets. And in response, they killed 1,500 people. That’s a lot.

Atul Singh: Not by the standards of Joseph Stalin, or even Saddam Hussein.

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes, but that was the longest period of time. And again, they were in an olden age. In 2019, if you kill 1,500 people in less than a week in the darkness of an absolute nationwide Internet shutdown, that’s a nightmare. I lived through that. I was on the ground in Iran reporting those events.

Atul Singh: And you were under a huge threat of life and limb, I suppose?

Khosrow Isfahani: Absolutely, like every other journalist who is doing their job. And after 2019, we have seen a reoccurrence of these types of protests in Iran. After that, we had protests against water shortage, which again was brutally suppressed. And recently, in 2022–2023, we had the Woman, Life, Freedom movement, which was triggered by police killing this young woman from Iran’s persecuted Kurdish minority over showing too much hair. Over 500 were killed.

Atul Singh: She wasn’t even wearing a bikini.

Khosrow Isfahani: She was very — if you see the photos of her before this incident, everyone would describe it as very modestly covered. So it shocked the whole nation.

Atul Singh: Some Iranians I know have called it — and you as well have called it — a war on women.

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes. And it didn’t start with the killing of Mahsa Jina Amini. It has been a war that has been ongoing since 1979, with the inception of the Islamic Republic. This regime has a three-pillar ideological system. One of them is animosity toward the West, specifically the US; hatred of Israel — it’s irreconcilable — and this unending war against women. It started with oppressing women into wearing very, very conservative clothing — forcing them to wear the hijab, firing people from their jobs, arresting them, sentencing them to lashing, denying them access to services, and it’s continuing. And to mark that continuation, despite the lies that Iran’s chief propagandist, Zarif, would like—

Atul Singh: Javad Zarif.

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes, the former foreign minister and current aide to the president.

Atul Singh: He went to school with the father of a friend. And my friend’s father — who’s passed away — didn’t have very many pleasant things to say about him.

Khosrow Isfahani: Not any. I cannot think of a single person with a shred of dignity who would have anything nice to say about Javad Zarif. This man has whitewashed crimes of the Islamic Republic — crimes against humanity, war crimes of this regime — over the past four decades, nonstop.

Atul Singh: He’s a smooth operator, to give the devil his due.

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes. That makes him a more dangerous actor compared to his predecessor who died in a helicopter crash recently.

Trump, deterrence and future scenarios

Atul Singh: I see. So let’s discuss the new world we live in, you and I are sitting in Washington, DC. Donald Trump is back in the White House. As of today, he has issued 37 executive orders, and things are extremely uncertain. The Pentagon jargon: Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous — VUCA. We very much are in the VUCA world. So what lies ahead for Iran now?

Khosrow Isfahani: So, on one end, we have an Iranian establishment in its entirety swearing absolute revenge against President Trump after the killing of IRGC Quds Force Commander, the Islamic Republic’s chief terror operator, Qasem Soleimani. The Islamic Republic, its Supreme Leader and the civilian government have sworn that they are going to kill the president. The official website of the Supreme Leader has published posters saying that President Trump should be killed and assassinated.

Atul Singh: As revenge for killing Qasem Soleimani who was killed in Baghdad, and in the eyes of many Iranians, was a hero.

Khosrow Isfahani: And in the eyes of many, a murderous war criminal who had the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people on his hands — people in especially Syria. He was the commander that led the bloody crackdown that the Islamic Republic, Russia and the deposed Bashar al-Assad led against the uprising of the Syrian people for justice and liberty in their country.

Atul Singh: So in particular, a lot of Sunnis — who form the majority of Syria — were targeted and tortured and killed.

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes. And he was responsible for a lot of that.

Atul Singh: Okay. So let’s come back to Trump. Yes, so on the one hand, they want Donald Trump dead.

Khosrow Isfahani: Yes. But at the same time, they are extremely afraid of a second-term President Trump in office. The first term didn’t end well for the Islamic Republic. It was marked with the maximum pressure campaign.

Atul Singh: Well, he threw out Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

Khosrow Isfahani: Which many experts believe was a flawed agreement that didn’t include Iran’s regional activities and missile program under the JCPOA, the nuclear deal.

Atul Singh: Yes, JCPOA is the full form, yeah.

Khosrow Isfahani: —expanded its missile and drone program. It enriched its militants — the network of militant groups across the region. So yes, in his first term, President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, reimposed strict sanctions against the Islamic Republic. And as one very knowledgeable economist back in Iran at the time told me, President Trump was like a lion having Iran by its back, biting the back of the neck of the ayatollahs, rendering them incapacitated, unable to make any moves.

Atul Singh: Well, I think Donald Trump would love that image. He’s got blonde hair and he fancies himself as a lion. The ayatollahs would be, you know, the bisons or the wildebeests, or whatever you want to call them.

Khosrow Isfahani: That’s the analysis of this very senior, experienced economist at the time I knew.

Atul Singh: Excellent. I mean, he will certainly be appointed in the Trump White House. You should send his name over to the Donald.

Khosrow Isfahani: So that’s one thing that the ayatollahs are afraid of. But more importantly is that over the years, the clerical establishment in Iran has almost successfully gamed all presidents in the US. The two parties had become predictable for the ayatollahs in Tehran. They knew how they can play their cards to remain in this sphere of safety without being too limited. But with President Trump, they don’t know what would be the consequences of their actions. So right now, literally today, the Iranian Supreme Leader delivered a speech about the possibility of negotiations with “the enemy.” He said that “when you negotiate with the enemy, you should remember who you are negotiating with — but you may proceed.” Some have seen this as a signal from the Ayatollah for negotiations with the US. But the issue is: With a regime like the Islamic Republic, whatever negotiation you clinch, whatever deal you achieve, it would amount to nothing but kicking the can down the road. It’s not going to change the behavior or the ideology of this regime that has been the largest state sponsor of terrorism around the world. It’s not going to change the behavior of a regime that has been responsible for death and destruction around the Middle East. And it’s not going to change the behavior of a regime that constantly kills and oppresses the people under its rule.

Khosrow Isfahani: So what you’re saying is, Donald Trump would be unwise to negotiate with the Iranian regime, and what you’re implying is that he should kill the beast he has by his jaws.

Khosrow Isfahani: So, I’m going to quote, actually, the two-term president Hassan Rouhani in the book The Secret War with Iran. Ronen Bergman, when he’s talking about the McFarlane affair — Iran purchasing weapons from Israel with the US being in the middle and a lot else going on in the background — there is a specific chapter in this whole affair that I believe has remained true: During these negotiations, Hassan Rouhani was a senior security official within the Islamic Republic’s structure. He travels to France to meet with different stakeholders in the McFarlane affair. And sitting down with one of the officers negotiating the deal, he tells them that, “You don’t understand the ayatollahs in Tehran. You show weakness, and they exploit it. If you show strength, they would abide.” There is a direct quote — the conversation has actually been recorded by an intelligence officer who was in the room — and he says: “You should tell them that if you cross this red line, this specific military target can be hit and will be hit. And if you do that, the ayatollahs would change their behavior.”

Atul Singh: You’re sounding like Bibi Netanyahu.

Khosrow Isfahani: I’m quoting a two-term president within the Islamic Republic.

Atul Singh: (Laughs) Rouhani is sounding like Bibi Netanyahu. So what you’re saying is, paradoxically, Trump’s hardball tactics might yield some results with Iran?

Khosrow Isfahani: So the thing is, a very wise friend a couple of months ago told me that there is connective tissue between diplomacy, military action and sanctions. These don’t exist in the void. And any administration in the US would be wise to use the wide array of — and all the tools at its disposal — for containing a rogue state like the Islamic Republic and re-establishing deterrence in the Middle East.

Atul Singh: On that note, great to have you, Khosrow. We learned a few things. Obviously, we’d love to have you back on a vast area of issues — not just on the Middle East, because you have much broader interests — but also civil society, journalism, how geopolitics is shaping up worldwide. And we look forward to seeing you very soon.

Khosrow Isfahani: Thank you, Atul. Thanks for having me.

Atul Singh: Thank you.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.