The global discussion surrounding the U.S.-Iran conflict is heavily dominated by strategic calculations, missile capabilities, nuclear negotiations, economic sanctions, and regional balance of power. Analysts debate prevention, policymakers weigh costs, and media headlines measure financial losses. However, amid the fixation on country-centric metrics, one critical dimension remains overlooked, namely the gender consequences of conflict.
When war occurs, what is discussed and massively seen is only the amount of losses, but the psychological losses and trauma that affect the vulnerable are ignored. This absence is not a coincidence; it reflects a deeper structural problem in international politics. Drawing on the perspective of radical feminism, this article argues that the U.S.-Iran conflict is not gender-neutral, but rather embedded in a patriarchal system of global power in which wars are shaped by the logic of masculine domination and control, while women disproportionately bear the consequences.
War Without Women: The Illusion of Gender Neutrality
Conflict is still treated in the mainstream discourse on international affairs as though it were exposed in a genderless vacuum. Tensions between the United States and Iran are defined in terms of economic resiliency, nuclear proliferation, and national security. This story erases the various experiences of those who suffer from the effects of such policies while assuming a universal subject that is essentially male, logical, and state-oriented.
The illusion of neutrality that exists today is a product of this gender blindness. The prevailing theory hides how conflict alters daily life, particularly for women and other vulnerable groups, by concentrating solely on the state and elites. As highlighted by UN Women, ignoring the gender dimension in conflict leads to inadequate and often misleading policy responses.
The Gendered Cocts of Conflict
Contrary to the dominant narrative, the impact of the US-Iran conflict is highly gendered. While men are often overrepresented among combatants, women disproportionately experience the consequences of conflict indirectly and long-term. The focus is on how much money is wasted on conflict, but forgetting that the trauma left behind is also a loss that only the vulnerable pay.
Economic sanctions, for example, do not operate in abstract macroeconomic terms. They translate into rising food prices, limited access to health care, and a shrinking burden of employment opportunities that often afflict women, especially in social circles where they are already economically marginalized. In Iran, sanctions have exacerbated inflation and restricted access to essential medicines, directly affecting maternal health and women’s well-being, the analysis from Internasional Crisis Group.
In addition, conflict environments tend to intensify gender-based violence. As social structures weaken and legal protections erode, women become more vulnerable to exploitation, harassment, and harassment. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, armed conflict consistently increases the risk of sexual violence and reduces access to protection mechanisms.
Beyond physical danger, there is also an invisible dimension of work. Women are often expected to absorb the shocks of the crisis, care for injured family members, manage households under economic pressure, and maintain social cohesion. This unpaid and unrecognized labor becomes a silent pillar that sustains society in conflict, even when it remains excluded from political and academic considerations.
Patriarchal Power and Warmaking
From a radical feminist standpoint, these outcomes are structural rather than coincidental. According to this perspective, war is an expression of a patriarchal power structure that values dominance, hierarchy, and control rather than just the breakdown of peace.
International politics, including U.S.-Iran relations, is heavily shaped by what scholars describe as “masculine security.” This framework prioritizes military power, territorial control, and the nature of coercive force that has historically been associated with dominant forms of masculinity. As feminist scholars such as Cynthia Enloe have argued, global politics cannot be understood without examining how gender power relations shape war and diplomacy.
Men dominate the political and military leadership systems in both Iran and the United States. A performative masculinity that connects authority with aggressiveness is reflected in the language of confrontation, threats, revenge, and dominance. Alternative strategies focused on security, cooperation, and human care are excluded or disregarded as inadequate in such a society. By demonstrating how women’s bodies themselves become the site of political struggle, radical feminism expands on this criticism. Control over women by violence, limitations, or symbolic regulation is frequently strengthened during times of conflict. This is integrated into geopolitics rather than existing outside of it.
Whose Security? Whose Voice?
A critical question arises: who defines security in the context of the U.S.-Iran conflict, and whose voice falls within that definition?
Despite global commitments such as United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security, women remain significantly underrepresented in high-level diplomatic and security processes. Their exclusion is not just a matter of representation but of perspective.
Policies are less likely to address the entire range of conflict impacts if women are not involved. Women’s views are marginalized, which feeds a vicious cycle in which policies are created without considering gender realities, producing results that exacerbate already-existing disparities.
Rethinking Conflict Through a Feminist Lens
It is essential to go beyond state- and military-centered frameworks in order to critically engage with the U.S.-Iran confrontation. Rethinking what constitutes security and whose experience counts is necessary for a radical feminist perspective. This does not imply disregarding strategic or geopolitical concerns, but rather situating them within a more comprehensive perspective of human affect. This necessitates acknowledging that conflict is experienced differently by people of different genders and that strategies should be assessed based on both their social and strategic effects.
Conclusion: The Price of War Is Paid by Women, Not Those Who Wage It
There is more to the US-Iran war than just sanctions, strategy, and state. It is also a tale of hushed voices, unfair pain, and invisible burdens. Today, focusing solely on markets and missiles would mean missing the human reality that is taking place beneath the surface of geopolitics. Women are central to the outcomes of conflict, not its periphery. But they are still mostly left out of the story that defines our sense of the world. War will continue to be fought not only on the battlefield but also on women’s bodies, lives, and futures as long as it is planned and executed within the framework of patriarchy. Acknowledging this is not the act of adding gender to the fringes of analysis, it is a necessary step to rethink the nature of conflict itself.
