A possible military strike against Iran does not align with the United States’ strategic interests. Iran is “neither Iraq nor Afghanistan,” but an institutionally established state with a young society possessing high mobilization potential. This was stated by political scientist Alen Ghevondyan.
“The main nerve of Iranian society is the rejection of external dictates, whether regarding nuclear, missile, or other technological choices,” the expert noted.
Blockade and force buildup
In recent months, tensions in the region have reached a new level. According to Ghevondyan, it is historically rare for the United States and a number of allies to concentrate such volumes of military equipment and personnel near the borders of a single country.
Looking at the map, it is clear that attempts are being made to effectively blockade Iran from various directions. At the same time, some countries, such as Pakistan, have refused to support such scenarios.
Nevertheless, the political scientist is convinced that the force buildup does not yet mean inevitable war. In his view, it is primarily a tool of negotiating pressure.
Capitulation demands and “red lines”
Ghevondyan points out that some of the demands placed on Iran can be described as capitulatory — in particular, complete abandonment of the nuclear program. Intermediate options are also being discussed, such as transferring enriched uranium to third countries, including Russia.
The next sensitive issue, he says, is missile programs. Having been under sanctions for decades, Iran has managed to build a technologically advanced army. During previous Iran-Israel confrontations, according to Ghevondyan, Israel was able to withstand the scale of missile strikes only thanks to support from partners, including the US and the UK.
War risks and limitations
The political scientist believes that the American administration is not deeply interested in a large-scale military clash. An 85-million-strong Iran, whose population—despite ethnic diversity—is politically united around the idea of “Iran,” could turn into a protracted and extremely costly front.
“A ground operation could turn into a scenario even worse than Vietnam,” Ghevondyan emphasizes.
In this context, targeted strikes or operations against elites appear more likely than a full-scale invasion.
External support and internal scenarios
According to Ghevondyan, both public and non-public data indicate significant military and technological support for Iran from China and Russia. Meanwhile, Tehran is actively restoring infrastructure damaged in previous clashes, preparing for possible new strikes.
He does not rule out attempts at internal destabilization — through mass unrest and political pressure aimed at a gradual regime change. However, he stresses that Iran has repeatedly proven its high resilience to such scenarios.
Implications for Armenia
Ghevondyan states that the situation is “fantastically tense,” and developments could unfold rapidly and unpredictably — partly due to the information vacuum.
Since Iran is Armenia’s immediate neighbor, any escalation will inevitably affect Yerevan both economically and in terms of security.
“We will feel the impact of any scenario on our own skin — whether positive or painfully negative,” the political scientist concludes.