Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia Blog

Lessons in Sovereignty from Iran for Neighboring Muslim Countries: Strategic Analysis of Ground Invasion and Regional Implications

By

MYR Agung Sidayu

Chairman, Yayasan Pendidikan Indonesia – Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC, United Nations (since 2013)

Historical Lesson:

‏خلال حرب فيتنام، دمّرت الغارات الأمريكية الطرق والجسور وقرى كاملة في أنحاء البلاد فأصبح عبور الأنهار شبه مستحيل للجنود والمدنيين، لكن حتى وسط الدمار، وجد الناس طرقًا للبقاء ومساعدة بعضهم البعض.

‏في واحدة من أكثر اللحظات الإنسانية تأثيرًا التي وثقتها الكاميرات، وقفت نساء فيتناميات جنبًا إلى جنب داخل المياه الباردة لساعات طويلة، يحملن منصات خشبية بأجسادهن حتى يتمكن الجنود من العبور بأمان.

‏هؤلاء النساء لم يعبرن الجسر بل أصبحن الجسر نفسه.

Introduction

In recent weeks, United States foreign policy has displayed a striking inconsistency. Statements by President Donald Trump have frequently diverged from the positions and explanations offered by senior U.S. military officials and diplomats, creating confusion both domestically and on the international stage. This has further complicated public understanding of Washington’s strategy in the Middle East.

This morning, we followed an in-depth interview with Matt Bracken—former U.S. Navy SEAL and special operations veteran—on #MarioNawfal, as well as a presentation by senior journalist Rami Khouri on Mehdi Hasan’s program. Both addressed the escalation involving Iran, Israel, and the United States. Bracken made a particularly striking comparison, likening #KhargIsland (Iran’s primary oil export terminal) to Iwo Jima and #Qeshm Island (the largest island in the Persian Gulf, dominating the Strait of Hormuz) to Okinawa during World War II. His remarks underscored the extreme risks, potential for massive casualties, and severe logistical challenges of any ground operation against Iran, a nation that has spent decades preparing its defenses.

This analysis extends beyond purely military considerations. Iran’s resistance has offered valuable lessons in sovereignty to neighboring Muslim countries, particularly the resource-rich Arab states of the Gulf. Through its doctrine of asymmetric defense, regional alliances, and resilience against sanctions and repeated attacks, Iran has demonstrated the true meaning of sovereignty. In contrast, many Arab leaders are perceived as prioritizing regime survival and dependence on external powers—chiefly the United States and its allies—whose track record in winning prolonged wars in the region has often proven limited.

Borrowing the words of General Alamsyah Ratu Prawiranegara some 44 years ago, the Muslim world is often likened to “village chickens”—weak, easily controlled, frequently forgotten, and lacking strategic dignity. The author is increasingly convinced that if Arab leaders continue to approach geopolitics through traditional lenses, Indonesia—whose leader has from the outset expressed readiness to serve as a neutral mediator—has an important role to play in addressing these challenges. This is particularly relevant following Iran’s official invitation to Indonesian President #PrabowoSubianto to visit, which came after Indonesia dispatched a high-level delegation to the state funeral of #AyatollahKhamenei.

Nothing happens for nothing. This English expression reflects the principle of causality: every event, invitation, or geopolitical development carries deep context, purpose, and strategic implications, even if they are not immediately visible. In the context of Indonesia-Iran relations, the invitation appears to be more than diplomatic courtesy; it forms part of a search for a credible and neutral mediator amid an increasingly complex conflict.

This aligns with the Word of Allah SWT in Surah Ali Imran, verse 191:

رَبَّنَا مَا خَلَقْتَ هَٰذَا بَاطِلًا سُبْحَانَكَ فَقِنَا عَذَابَ النَّارِ

(“Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly. Exalted are You; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire.”)

The verse teaches that everything Allah creates carries wisdom and purpose. Nothing is in vain. In today’s context, it reminds us to view every global event—including the Middle East conflict and Indonesia’s potential role—as part of a larger design that demands wisdom, preparedness, and piety to fulfill our historic responsibilities with dignity.

In this article, we seek to expand the analysis of the feasibility of a ground operation against Iran with up-to-date factual data, insights from former U.S. military leaders, and a more comprehensive geopolitical perspective—particularly regarding lessons in sovereignty for the Muslim world.

Military Challenges of a Ground Invasion: Data and Expert Analysis

Kharg Island, with an area of approximately 20 km², is a vital artery of Iran’s economy, handling roughly 90% of the country’s crude oil exports. Despite its relatively small size, the island has been transformed into a modern fortress. Iran has constructed an extensive network of underground tunnels, anti-ship missile positions, FPV drones, anti-personnel and anti-armor mines, and MANPADS systems. Its proximity to the mainland (15–30 km) allows artillery, rockets, and ground-launched missiles to cover the entire island effectively.

Qeshm Island presents an even more formidable challenge. Spanning approximately 1,491 km²—larger than Okinawa (approximately 1,207 km²)—it functions as Iran’s “unsinkable aircraft carrier” at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz. The island features underground “missile cities,” drone launch bases, fast-attack craft, and a mature Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) coastal defense system. Satellite imagery shows massive deployment of anti-ship missiles, drones, and naval mines since the escalation of conflict in 2026.

Comparisons with World War II are relevant, though not identical. In the Battle of Iwo Jima, the U.S. landed around 70,000 Marines after weeks of naval bombardment, yet still suffered approximately 7,000 killed and 19,000 wounded in just one month. The Battle of Okinawa lasted nearly three months and cost around 12,000 American lives. Iran possesses modern technological advantages unavailable to Japan at the time: precision long-range missiles, cost-effective but lethal drone swarms, extensive tunnel networks that are difficult to destroy, and an asymmetric warfare doctrine refined over decades from experiences in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.

Historical Evidence of U.S. Difficulty in Achieving Decisive, Lasting Victories

Post-World War II U.S. military history reveals a consistent pattern: technological and conventional superiority often fails to deliver definitive strategic victories.

• Vietnam (1955–1975): The U.S. deployed over 500,000 troops at its peak and conducted the heaviest bombing campaign in history up to that time, yet withdrew after more than 58,000 American deaths. Vietnam unified under communist rule—America’s political objectives failed completely.

• Afghanistan (2001–2021): The longest war in U.S. history ended with a chaotic withdrawal in August 2021. The Taliban regained full control within days, demonstrating that 20 years of occupation, trillions of dollars, and tens of thousands of casualties (military and civilian) did not produce a stable secular democracy.

• Iraq (2003–2011 and subsequent operations): An invasion based on flawed intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction devastated the country, gave rise to ISIS, and cost over 2 trillion dollars plus tens of thousands of U.S. and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Iraq remains an arena of Iranian influence and armed militias rather than a stable, reliable U.S. ally.

Similar patterns in Somalia, Libya, and other interventions show that while the U.S. can dismantle regimes or infrastructure, it faces enormous challenges in building sustainable peace, often leaving power vacuums filled by non-state actors or former adversaries. This history underpins strong skepticism toward any invasion scenario involving Iran.

Views of Experts and Former U.S. Military Leaders

• Matt Bracken: “If we go into Iran, we will lose everything we send. The more we send, the more we lose.”

• General Frank McKenzie (former CENTCOM Commander): Seizing Kharg Island could provide negotiating leverage, but the operation would carry extremely high risks.

• James Stavridis (former NATO Supreme Allied Commander): “Big risk for little reward” due to complex logistics and the vulnerability of forces to sustained attacks.

• Mick Ryan (Lowy Institute) and John Mearsheimer: A major ground invasion of mainland Iran—whose territory is 3–4 times larger than Iraq—would require hundreds of thousands of troops and risks becoming a “forever war.” The rugged Zagros and Alborz mountain ranges, vast deserts, and large population prepared for asymmetric resistance strongly favor the defender.

Even limited operations targeting strategic islands are estimated to require an initial force of 5,000–10,000 personnel, with high risks of casualties and difficult-to-control escalation.

Iran as a Lesson in Sovereignty for the Gulf Arab States

Amid these formidable military challenges, Iran’s resistance offers a narrative of sovereignty sharply contrasting with the reality faced by many Gulf Arab states. Senior journalist and analyst Rami Khouri has repeatedly argued that Iran is demonstrating “what true sovereignty means” in the face of external dominance. For decades, Iran has withstood the harshest economic sanctions, cyber attacks such as Stuxnet, assassinations of scientists, and military threats from the U.S. and Israel, while developing advanced ballistic missiles, drones, and the Axis of Resistance through regional proxies.

Wealthy Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are often criticized for excessive reliance on U.S. military protection, normalization with Israel via the Abraham Accords, and prioritizing monarchical regime stability over broader Muslim interests. Should Iran close the Strait of Hormuz or launch retaliatory strikes against U.S. bases in Bahrain or Kuwait, the Gulf states would immediately feel tangible economic and security consequences.

Iran has proven that sovereignty is not measured merely by material wealth or alliances with superpowers, but by political will, self-reliant defense innovation, and the ability to impose prohibitive costs on adversaries. While many Arab leaders depend on a United States whose historical record in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq shows difficulty in achieving conclusive, lasting victories, Iran compels its opponents to reconsider their approach.

Khouri highlights the collective loss of Arab agency: economic, security, and political decisions often require approval from the U.S., Israel, or other major powers. In contrast, Iran—despite isolation and internal challenges—maintains significant strategic autonomy and influences Muslim public opinion through its narrative of resistance to what it terms “new colonialism.”

The lesson is clear: excessive dependence keeps the Muslim world in the position of “village chickens”—weak, easily controlled, stripped of dignity, and divided. True sovereignty requires courage, self-reliance, and long-term vision, not merely temporary wealth or external protection.

Broader Implications for the Muslim World

The lessons emerging from Iran’s resilience amid Middle East escalation extend far beyond Iran’s borders. They resonate across the entire Muslim world—from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, Africa, and Muslim communities in the West. While wealthy Gulf states often choose regime stability and strategic alliances with Western powers (especially the U.S.), Iran—despite being Shia and facing internal criticism and accusations of expansionism via its proxies—has emerged as a symbol of steadfastness and resistance. This has deepened divisions in strategic orientation and narrative within the Muslim world.

Iran is not without flaws. Its regime faces strong criticism, both domestically and internationally, on human rights, economic policy, and alleged interventions through the Axis of Resistance (Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and militias in Iraq and Syria), which are often accused of exacerbating sectarian conflict. Nevertheless, Iran’s ability to endure decades of the harshest sanctions in modern history, cyber attacks, targeted killings, and direct military threats has forced a rethinking of the regional order in the Middle East.

Historically, the post-Cold War Muslim world has often been trapped in a dilemma of dependence. Many oil-rich Muslim states have relied on the U.S. “security umbrella,” as seen in the 1991 Gulf War and subsequent operations. While this model provides short-term regime stability, it reduces space for genuine national and collective Muslim sovereignty. When conflicts erupt, these states frequently become arenas for proxy wars, with resources exploited and ordinary citizens bearing the brunt.

Iran offers a controversial alternative model: asymmetric resistance, investment in indigenous defense technologies (ballistic missiles and drones now exported to various actors), and a powerful ideological narrative. This approach enables a conventionally weaker state to offset adversaries with superior technology and budgets. Iran’s resilience has forced the U.S. and its allies to weigh high political, economic, and military costs—something few other modern Muslim states have achieved.

The true lesson, however, is not blind imitation of the Iranian model, but a deeper wisdom: the need for unity grounded in national sovereignty and collective Muslim interests. Excessive dependence on external powers weakens the Muslim world as a whole. Sectarianism (Sunni-Shia), whether deliberately or inadvertently sharpened by outside actors, benefits third parties while Muslims lose opportunities to build shared strength in economics, technology, and diplomacy.

In the context of Indonesia—the world’s largest Muslim nation—this lesson is especially pertinent. As a neutral, sovereign country unbound by permanent military alliances with major powers, Indonesia possesses a unique potential to serve as a credible bridge and mediator. Its historical experience with the Non-Aligned Movement, peace diplomacy, and success in maintaining internal balance among diverse groups provides valuable assets. Should other Muslim leaders remain trapped in patterns of dependence and narrow regime priorities, the Muslim world will continue in a position of weakness—vulnerable to exploitation, divided, and lacking strategic dignity on the global stage.

Ultimately, Iran’s resilience reminds us that true sovereignty is not granted but earned through self-reliance, wisdom, unity, and piety. Without these, no matter how wealthy, Muslim countries will remain arenas for great-power competition, with their people as the primary victims. This lesson is not a call to confrontation, but an invitation to deep introspection and the building of independent capacity for a more dignified future for the Ummah.

Conclusion

A ground invasion of Iran—whether limited to strategic islands such as Kharg and Qeshm or a large-scale operation on the mainland—is not a rational option. In-depth assessments by military experts and former U.S. officials—including Matt Bracken, General Frank McKenzie, James Stavridis, Mick Ryan, and John Mearsheimer—consistently highlight the enormous human, economic, and strategic costs. Iran’s extreme geography, decades of asymmetric defense preparation, and the historical record of U.S. challenges in achieving decisive, lasting victories (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq) strongly suggest that “military victory” is often a tactical illusion rather than long-term strategic success.

Beyond military analysis, this conflict highlights profound lessons about sovereignty. Iran’s steadfastness challenges Gulf Arab states and the wider Muslim world to break the cycle of dependence. It demonstrates that true sovereignty is not measured by material wealth or foreign protection, but by political will, self-reliant defense innovation, and the courage to confront geopolitical realities.

Meanwhile, if Muslim leaders focus solely on regime survival and reliance on inconsistent external powers, the global Muslim community will remain in the position of “village chickens”—weak, easily controlled, lacking strategic dignity, and divided.

In this context, Indonesia possesses a highly relevant and inspiring historical legacy. In the early years of independence, President Soekarno led landmark international peace initiatives. Through the 1955 Asia-Africa Conference in Bandung, he united newly independent nations, advocated for the “New Emerging Forces,” and promoted a just New World Order opposing old imperialism and colonialism. Indonesia under Soekarno became a moral and political voice for oppressed nations. We recall the special statement by President Ernest Bai Koroma of Sierra Leone that his country’s independence was inspired by President Soekarno.

Subsequently, #PresidentSoeharto, with his pragmatic and stability-oriented leadership, established Indonesia as a valuable “lesson learned” in regional and international peace efforts. Indonesia played key roles in resolving conflicts in Cambodia, the Philippines (as shared by my friend General Kivlan Zen), and Bosnia (where we may ask Defense Minister Syafri Syamsuddin to recount), served as a UN peacekeeper, and built #ASEAN as a pillar of regional stability. Though their approaches differed, both founding leaders proved that Indonesia can be a neutral, sovereign, and respected actor for peace.

If Soekarno and Soeharto could achieve this in their respective eras despite limitations, we are confident that President #PrabowoSubianto can continue and strengthen this legacy. As the world’s largest Muslim nation, with a growing economy and a tradition of active, neutral diplomacy, Indonesia possesses unique credentials to serve as a credible mediator in complex conflicts such as those in the Middle East.

This analysis is based on publicly available data, verified sources, and expert opinions as of July 2026. The geopolitical situation remains highly dynamic and subject to rapid change. Therefore, a peaceful approach, intelligent diplomacy, and the strengthening of national sovereignty remain the wisest and most dignified path toward regional and global stability.

May this conflict serve as a moment for the Muslim world to engage in deep introspection, strengthen unity based on sovereignty, and build a more self-reliant and just future.

Wallahu a’lam bish-shawab​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​