With the agreement of the parties involved, the unjust war waged by the United States and Israel against Iran came to a two-week ceasefire after 40 days. Attention has now shifted to the difficult and intense negotiations set to begin Friday in Islamabad. Of critical importance in this context is Iran’s adept management of the course of this aggression over the forty-day period. The remarkable resilience of the public, coordination among the country’s senior decision-making institutions, and Iran’s defensive strength in safeguarding its territorial integrity and national sovereignty were key factors in compelling Trump to accept a ceasefire. Yet behind these effective measures stood a single, creative strategy that infused them with coherence and force: the synergy of power-generating levers. Through this approach, Iran transformed the war’s effects into a global challenge, enhanced its own capabilities, and forced its adversaries to recognize new realities across military, political, and economic domains. At its core, this strategy entails the maximum utilization of a political system’s diverse advantages—assets that are not always fully mobilized within traditional power-generation frameworks.

Alongside factors such as public support and defensive capability, Iran’s use of the geopolitical advantage of the Strait of Hormuz stands out as one of the most prominent expressions of this strategy. Throughout the forty-day war, while demonstrating the full range of its military, political, and social capacities in countering aggression, Iran also leveraged its geopolitical attributes—particularly the Strait of Hormuz—as a uniquely powerful instrument. In doing so, it underscored its indispensable role in international security dynamics and the global economy. It can be argued that this very strategy compelled the United States to accept a ceasefire and acknowledge Iran’s power.

The Strait of Hormuz, as a geographic asset with both geopolitical and geostrategic significance, has been under Iran’s control for centuries. Yet few political systems in Iran’s history have been able to fully harness this endowment and transform it into an effective and decisive instrument for securing national interests. The forty-day war provides a striking example of how Iran succeeded in converting its diverse domestic components—including the Strait of Hormuz—into sources of power, authority, and national security. This is the essence of the innovative strategy that emerged from Iran’s multilayered actions during the recent conflict: the transformation of national assets into leverage capable of influencing the global balance of power.

In the field of international relations, one of the most meaningful developments of the past two decades has been the transformation in the nature of power and how it is exercised. Power is no longer defined solely—or even primarily—by the quantity and quality of military capabilities or economic weight. Rather, the ability to strategically convert sensitive points into leverage has become one of the most effective means of generating influence. This model, observed across various regional and global contexts, is steadily assuming a more central role in state strategy. For example, efforts by governments worldwide to establish and control regional corridors are a clear manifestation of this leverage-building approach. The essence of this shift lies in actors moving beyond reliance on hard power alone, instead employing mechanisms that raise the costs for adversaries, reshape their calculations, and compel them to adapt to new realities.

Within this framework, the significance of conflicts—whether limited tensions or full-scale wars—extends beyond their immediate outcomes. Their deeper importance lies in revealing this evolving pattern of power. In many such cases, analysts observe that actors do not need to achieve complete military or economic superiority; it is sufficient to demonstrate the capacity to affect a critical node within the global system—particularly in energy flows, supply chains, or trade routes. When an actor can impose such costs, whether potentially or in practice, it possesses an effective lever, and that lever itself becomes a form of power.

The logic behind this transformation is straightforward, though its implications are complex. In a world of deep economic interdependence, where disruption at a single node can produce far-reaching consequences, the ability to threaten or disrupt such nodes provides actors—especially those not traditionally classified as “great powers”—with a new form of balancing power. This model not only entails relatively lower costs but also aligns more readily with political and international constraints. Such power depends less on dominance in the battlefield and more on the management of risk. By creating the potential for significant disruption or control, the leverage-building actor forces others to factor that risk into all their calculations. As a result, even without large-scale action, its weight in regional and global decision-making increases. In other words, the center of gravity shifts from battlefield victories to the transformation of strategic calculations.

If this model becomes entrenched in international interactions, the global order itself will be compelled to redefine certain rules. One of the key domains most susceptible to leverage-building is the flow of energy. The stability of these flows is vital to the global economy, and any actor capable of influencing them—whether by the capacity to disrupt or by playing a role in maintaining stability—acquires a new position within global decision-making structures. If, as a result of a period of tension, the international environment comes to perceive that the stability of a vital route—such as a waterway, corridor, pipeline, or energy-producing region—depends on the behavior of a particular actor, then a “new rule” effectively emerges. This rule may not be formal or codified, but it exerts a tangible influence on the calculations of major powers. Under such conditions, even if a ceasefire or de-escalation occurs, the central question for analysts is not who won, but whether a new role has been institutionalized—and whether other actors must now incorporate that reality into their security and economic planning.

In a world where shifting points of vulnerability can reshape broader equations, actors that understand and skillfully exploit these points may prove more influential than their apparent weight suggests. Iran demonstrated this strategy effectively during the forty-day war, activating numerous sources of national strength and transforming them into leverage within international relations. The sustained public presence in nighttime gatherings, national unity in condemning the aggressor, decisive and forceful responses to US and Israeli attacks, the use of both overt and discreet diplomatic channels, and a clear understanding of the security environment of the global economy—particularly energy transit through the Strait of Hormuz—all can be understood within the framework of this innovative strategy.

While the outcome of the ceasefire and the forthcoming negotiations between Tehran and Washington remains uncertain, one conclusion can be stated with clarity and confidence: Iran has achieved strategic success in leveraging its indigenous capacities to generate both national and international power.