#9/26 OPEN CONSULTATION MONDAYS, 14 SEPTEMBER 2026
The report summarises a Global South Perspectives Network discussion held six months into the war with Iran. Professor Mohsen Milani and Professor Abel Esterhuyse approached the conflict from different fields but reached a similar conclusion: military superiority has not delivered the strategic outcomes sought by the United States and Israel. According to the speakers, Iran’s government has survived, its missile and drone capabilities remain, and its nuclear programme has not been eliminated.
The speakers identified several miscalculations behind the campaign. Iran’s weakened network of regional allies was taken as evidence that the state itself was weak. Domestic opposition was mistaken for a willingness to support regime change. Damage to air defences was assumed to have removed Iran’s capacity to retaliate. Instead, attacks have strengthened national solidarity among some Iranians who remain critical of their government.
Geography has also shaped the conflict. Iran’s size makes invasion and occupation impractical, while air strikes cannot by themselves remake its political order. Its position near the Strait of Hormuz allows disruption to spread through oil markets, freight, food prices and public budgets. The report stresses that these costs fall heavily on countries far beyond the region, including those in the Global South.
The discussion considers who might help bring the parties back to talks. Qatar, Oman and Pakistan can facilitate contact, while China has substantial economic and strategic influence. A settlement guaranteed chiefly by major powers, however, could leave smaller states with little say. The speakers saw limited prospects for a decisive United Nations or European Union role under current conditions.
Both speakers warned that the war may have strengthened arguments within Iran for acquiring a nuclear weapon, despite the campaign’s stated aim of reducing that threat. They outlined three possible paths: prolonged attrition, intensified economic warfare or renewed negotiation. Neither expected further military pressure alone to resolve the conflict.
The report concludes that a durable exit requires direct talks, compromise and credible assurances that an agreement will hold. Its wider warning is that military action can destroy capabilities without producing a workable political settlement, while the human and economic costs continue to spread.
*This is a summary of GSPN Open Consultation Mondays meeting, held on 14 September 2026. The full report can be accessed here
Leave a comment