OPINION: Iran in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen — the invisible empire Washington refuses to name

Introduction: The paradox of a deal that rewards expansion

Negotiating with Tehran while its proxies hold the region

While Washington and Tehran negotiate a memorandum of understanding (MoU) meant to end hostilities and open the path to a nuclear deal, Iran is methodically pursuing its imperial agenda on three simultaneous fronts: Lebanon via Hezbollah, Yemen via the Houthis, and a residual presence in Syria. This reality — documented by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) in its special report of June 24, 2026 — is carefully avoided in official diplomatic communiqués. To name Iranian imperial expansion is to admit that the negotiations may actually be strengthening the aggressor's regional power.

The fifth clause of the MoU tasks Iran with negotiating with Oman and other Gulf littoral states the future management of the Strait of Hormuz. On the surface, a merely technical matter. In reality, an invitation to Tehran to establish itself as a central actor in the Gulf's security architecture — exactly what the Islamic Republic has been pursuing since 1979. Iran's Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf stated this openly on June 24: Iran is "ready for security agreements with Gulf states, made durable by economic cooperation." Translation: a Pax Iranica in the making.

What recent history teaches us

There is a recent precedent worth reflecting on. In 2015, the nuclear deal JCPOA lifted sanctions and unfroze billions in Iranian assets. The years that followed saw accelerated expansion of Hezbollah's military capabilities, a rise of the Houthis in Yemen, and a consolidation of Iranian presence in Syria. The peace money funded proxy warfare. There is no reason to believe 2026 will be different, unless the current deal contains robust verification mechanisms — which the ISW explicitly doubts.

Lebanon: Hezbollah between reconstruction and rearmament

Lebanese negotiations as a manoeuvring ground

On June 23 and 24, 2026, Israeli, Lebanese, and American officials discussed in Washington the possibility of deploying Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in "pilot zones" of southern Lebanon, to replace Israeli positions. Iran, through Ghalibaf, laid down a central condition: a full Israeli withdrawal. This is a position that, if accepted, would leave a vacuum only Hezbollah is capable of filling — the LAF being too weak and too infiltrated to constitute a genuine barrier.

Qatar, a member of the de-escalation cell alongside the United States, Iran, Lebanon, and Pakistan, insisted that this cell "monitor ceasefire violations." In practice, this mechanism risks constraining Israel's ability to act against Hezbollah violations — exactly what Tehran is seeking to obtain. The ISW is explicit: Iran is using the Lebanese question to delay any substantive negotiations on its nuclear programme.

Hezbollah, a state army within the Lebanese state

After the 2024–2025 conflicts, Hezbollah has not disarmed — it is restructuring. Regional security analysts note that Iran is maintaining resupply channels through Syria, despite repeated Israeli strikes on logistical routes. The Lebanese Shia movement retains a precision arsenal capable of threatening the entire Israeli territory. Any US-Iran deal that allows pressure on Hezbollah to be frozen would be a major strategic victory for Tehran.

Yemen: the Houthis as a permanent lever

A proxy force that has shifted the regional balance

Yemen's Houthis, officially known as Ansarallah, have demonstrated since 2023 their ability to disrupt global maritime trade by targeting vessels in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. This capability — ballistic missiles, long-range drones, maritime drones — derives directly from Tehran's military and technological support. Iran has created in Yemen a proxy force that threatens Gulf states, Israel, and global maritime trade simultaneously — at marginal cost to Iran itself.

The US-Iran MoU apparently contains no binding clauses on Houthi disarmament or disengagement. Gulf states — particularly Saudi Arabia, directly targeted by Houthi attacks — are concerned by this gap. A nuclear deal signed without resolution of the Houthi threat leaves a sword of Damocles hanging over the Arabian Peninsula.

Negotiations as a smokescreen

There is a repeated tactic in Iran's posture: engage in negotiations on one issue (the nuclear programme, the Strait of Hormuz) to obtain real concessions, while maintaining pressure through its proxies on other fronts. While the nuclear programme is discussed, the Houthis fire. While the Strait of Hormuz is on the table, Hezbollah rearms. This multilayered strategy is brilliant and cynical. It demands a response that addresses all fronts simultaneously — not a compartmentalised deal that benefits Iran at every step.

The strategy of regional architecture: Tehran's imperial project

A coherent geopolitical project since 1979

The Islamic Republic of Iran has never concealed its regional ambitions. The concept of "strategic depth" — projecting Iranian power beyond its borders via allies, proxies, and militias — is embedded in the doctrine of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). This coherent project aims to create a Shia crescent running from Iran, through Iraq and Syria, all the way to Lebanon — and to extend influence via the Houthis to the shores of the Red Sea.

What is new in 2026 is that Iran is now attempting to institutionalise this influence within formal frameworks — positioning itself as co-manager of the Strait of Hormuz, seeking a role in Gulf security architecture, proposing "security agreements" bilaterally to Arab states. This is the transition from the informal — proxies and militias — to the formal — treaties and institutions. If this project succeeds, Iran will have transformed its informal empire into a durable system.

Israel and Gulf states: alone against this project

According to Al Jazeera (June 25, 2026), the six states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) expressed formal support for the MoU — not out of enthusiasm, but out of a desire to end the war. Their deeper concerns about Iranian drones and proxies "destabilising their sovereignty" have not disappeared — they have simply been temporarily muted. Israel, absent from the negotiations, watches with concern an agreement that validates Iranian regional influence without having reduced any of its coercive tools.

What the West should demand in any negotiation with Iran

A serious deal must address the proxies

If the Trump administration wants a durable deal with Iran, it must include binding clauses on the disarmament and withdrawal of proxies: Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq, Houthis in Yemen. These conditions are not ideological whims — they are fundamental security requirements for America's regional allies. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates cannot accept a nuclear deal that leaves intact the Iranian military network.

The head of the IAEA declared on June 26 that "good intentions are not enough without robust inspections." The same logic must apply to proxies. Deals without verification mechanisms, without binding disarmament timelines, without consequences for non-compliance — these are not agreements, they are parchments.

Time works in Tehran's favour

The current dynamic favours Iran. Every month of negotiations allows it to consolidate its regional positions, rebuild its allies, institutionalise its influence in Lebanon and the Gulf, and quietly advance its nuclear programme. The classic argument — "better inside negotiations than outside" — has its limits when one party uses negotiations to advance its agenda rather than resolve it.

The proxy strategy: how Iran projects power without risking direct war

The "Shia crescent" model as regional architecture

Iran's regional power rests on a central principle: using armed proxies — Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, pro-Iranian militias in Iraq and Syria — to project power at low cost with plausible deniability. This proxy architecture forms what analysts call the "Shia crescent" or "axis of resistance" — a belt of Iranian influence stretching from Tehran to Beirut, through Baghdad, Damascus, and Sanaa. Each proxy group maintains a degree of operational autonomy while operating within Tehran's overall regional strategy.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and more specifically its Quds Force, is the architect of this network. It trains, funds, and arms proxy groups. Since the death of Qassem Soleimani in January 2020, his successor has kept the architecture in place — proof that the system is institutional, not personal. The death of a general, however charismatic, did not dismantle what decades of patient construction had built. Iran does not need to deploy its regular army to influence conflicts in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, or Yemen.

The Strait of Hormuz and Iran's "shared security" project

Control over the global energy flow

The fifth clause of the MoU asks Iran to "discuss" the management of the Strait of Hormuz with Oman and other littoral states. But Tehran has transformed this invitation to discuss into something far more ambitious. Iran's negotiator Ghalibaf explicitly declared that Iran is "ready for security agreements with Gulf states made durable by economic cooperation" — a formulation that describes a regional security system co-built with Iran as a central actor. According to Al Jazeera, a Qatari delegation visiting Muscat discussed a framework involving Iran, Iraq, and Arab Gulf states for managing maritime flows through the Strait.

If this project succeeds, Iran gains a permanent lever over 20% of global oil. Every tanker from the Gulf monarchies would have to navigate under a security architecture of which Tehran was co-architect. This is a major geopolitical transformation — obtained not through war but through diplomacy imposed in a post-conflict context. The Strait of Hormuz is the obligatory passage for the world's hydrocarbon economy. By establishing its influence there, Iran installs itself at the heart of global energy geopolitics.

Saudi Arabia between normalisation and strategic mistrust

Riyadh plays its own game

Saudi Arabia occupies a particularly delicate position in the post-MoU landscape. On one hand, the kingdom has since 2023 been engaged in a process of normalising its relations with Tehran, brokered by China — an agreement that surprised Washington. On the other, Riyadh has suffered direct Houthi attacks supported by Iran on its oil installations and urban centres. This tension between diplomatic pragmatism and security mistrust shapes the Saudi position.

The preparation of a "reconciliation summit" between Iran and Arab Gulf states — separate from the US-Iran negotiations — reveals the Saudi strategy: manage its relationship with Tehran directly without being locked into a US-Iranian bilateral framework. Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has clearly demonstrated since 2020 that Riyadh is willing to take autonomous geopolitical initiatives — the rapprochement with China, normalisation with Iran, discussions on BRICS expansion — signalling a strategic diversification away from exclusive dependence on Washington. This emancipation is understandable but complicates Western coordination.

Conclusion: Naming imperialism is already a form of resistance

Semantics as the first line of defence

Words matter. Calling Iranian expansion "regional influence" instead of "imperialism," describing the proxy network as "strategic partners" rather than "destabilising armed militias," framing control of the Strait of Hormuz as "maritime cooperation" — this is allowing an expansionist project to advance under a benevolent vocabulary. The first act of resistance is to name things correctly.

The West cannot look away

While Europe watches Ukraine and America calculates its tariffs, Iran is patiently building its regional hegemony. This expansion is not only a problem for Israel and Gulf states — it threatens global maritime routes, the stability of energy markets, and the international order the West claims to defend. Ignoring Iranian expansion to facilitate a nuclear deal means buying peace today at the cost of war tomorrow.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency box

My biases and sources

I am pro-Western and I take the position that regional stability in the Middle East requires a limitation of Iran's military capabilities and its proxy network. My analysis draws on reports from the ISW (Institute for the Study of War), Al Jazeera, Politics Today, and agency dispatches cited in these sources. I do not have access to the confidential texts of the US-Iran MoU.

What I don't know

I do not have the full text of the US-Iran MoU. I do not know exactly which clauses it contains on proxies or verification mechanisms. It is possible that certain confidential clauses address these questions — in which case my analysis would be partially incorrect. I note this honestly.

Sources

Primary sources

ISW — Iran Update Special Report, June 24, 2026 — June 25, 2026

Al Jazeera — Pragmatic choice: Israel's war backfires as Gulf backs US-Iran deal — June 25, 2026

Politics Today — Gulf States Reassess Security Strategy as US-Iran Agreement Raises Regional Concerns — June 26, 2026

Secondary sources

Iran International — Iran intentions not enough without strong inspections, IAEA chief says — June 26, 2026

Fondation Robert Schuman — Regional security framework analysis — 2026

Washington Times — Tensions rise in disputed South China Sea — June 25, 2026