With a US-brokered ceasefire now in place between Israel and Iran, there may be a lull in the immediate fighting. But the broader conflict and, importantly, its long-term stakes, remain unresolved.
Policymakers across Europe and the West are understandably preoccupied with the enduring security, political, and economic risks stemming from this fragile truce.
Last weekend’s American airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure using bunker-busting munitions, and Washington’s direct entry into the conflict, marked a peak in hostilities and have intensified concerns over what comes next.
As the world closely watches the aftermath of this major regional escalation, and despite that active fighting has halted for now, it is imperative to look beyond the battlefield.
The question of who shapes post-war Iran, and how, is just as consequential today as military strategy and diplomatic maneuvering.
Shaping Iran's ideological reconstruction
The history of the past half a century of conflict in the Middle East teaches a telling lesson: post-conflict vacuums do not remain empty for long. Almost as soon as fire ceases, if not before, ideologies, alliances, and investment models lie in wait, seeking to shape what comes next, and who takes the lead in shaping the future. Those who arrive at the scene first have the greatest opportunity to exercise influence.
If the West is to effectively shape Iran’s ideological reconstruction, without preparing well in advance, it risks ceding the future of the country to yet another series of authoritarian interests, only taking a different form.
Iran’s support for destabilizing actors across the world – including its backing of the Polisario Front in Western Sahara, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen, to name but a few of its regional proxies – underscores the breadth of its ideological ambitions and the risks posed by its influence far beyond the Middle East.
Almost 50 years since the ayatollahs took power has shown that Iran is no ordinary conflict zone. A pivotal state of more than 80 million people, and formerly the vast Persian empire, it is a country and nation with important natural resources, a young and educated population, and a deep civilizational heritage. The way in which the country moves ideologically brings with it the capacity to shape the stability of not only the region, but also global energy security, and the regional international order.
A post-war Iran that was aligned with democratic principles and reengaged with the West would be a transformative development. On the other hand, a defeated and isolated Iran – similar to a defeated and isolated post-World War I Germany – drifting toward repression, radicalism, or foreign domination would be a long-term strategic liability.
Both dimensions of reconstruction demand that Western governments begin planning in the immediate term. Indeed, physically rebuilding an already severely stressed national transportation, energy, and utilities infrastructure; and health and welfare system will not be an easy task.
International coordination to stabilize Iran's future
Assuming that US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are genuine in their suggestions at regime change, the US, Europe, and Israel, along with regional partners, would do well to coordinate effective contingency planning for a recovery fund that have clear benchmarks for transparency, local partnerships, and long-term economic diversification.
Rebuilding a state shattered by war and with a leadership vacuum, should there be one, is not about contracts or short-term aid solutions; it is most importantly about stabilizing a fragile society and ensuring that an alternative to dependency on malign actors exists.
Reconstruction, however, cannot simply be seen as a material endeavor. The far more complex challenge is ideological reconstruction. How does one create space for a more pluralistic, accountable, and inclusive society in an Iran that has been under the absolute rule of ideological extremists for almost half a century?
Supporting civil society, education, free media, legal reform, and transitional justice in a country where roughly 60% of the population was born after the Islamic Revolution and know no other reality can be a daunting task. If done properly, this must be achieved without imposing foreign models, while standing firm on universal values, to the extent that these can be defined.
Support for women’s rights, backing for grassroots civic initiatives, and cultural and academic exchange programs can all play a role in fostering a new generation of leadership.
Diplomatically, there is an opportunity for Western allies of the Iranian people to begin to craft a post-war framework, leveraging the Iranian diaspora. A phased plan for economic re-engagement tied to reform benchmarks could help incentivize moderation and provide a long-hoped-for political horizon for change. With the ceasefire offering a moment of reflection, but not resolution, the urgency of articulating such a framework has only grown.
The task at hand is not a simple one. And the West’s record in past interventions, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, must instill caution in any such effort. Any engagement with Iran’s future must respect local agency and avoid short-termism. But the lesson of those failures is not to disengage – it is to plan better, earlier, and with more humility.
The war in Iran may have paused, but the contest over its future is already underway.
The writer is the president and a co-founder of the Cambridge Middle East and North Africa Forum. He is also the CEO of London-based F&R Strategy Group, a geopolitical consultancy at the intersection of politics and business.