For policymakers in Washington, this presents a strategic dilemma. If military pressure is intended to force Iran back to negotiations, repeated strikes may produce precisely the opposite effect. They may strengthen those within Iran who argue that compromise under military attack would represent weakness. Nationalist sentiment, historical memory, and religious language can combine to create a political environment in which retaliation becomes more acceptable than restraint.
Western strategic literature often assumes that all actors share the same cost-benefit calculations. Yet political psychology has repeatedly demonstrated that decision-making is filtered through culture, ideology, identity, and historical experience. American policymakers frequently interpret restraint as strategic prudence. Iranian leaders may interpret the same restraint as surrender or even as a failure to fulfill moral obligations as they understand them. Whether or not outside observers agree with that interpretation is less important than recognizing that such perceptions influence political behavior.
The Strait of Hormuz illustrates this broader dynamic. From Washington's perspective, military operations seek to ensure freedom of navigation and protect one of the world's most important energy corridors. From Tehran's perspective, repeated attacks near its coastline may be viewed not merely as tactical operations but as continuing aggression requiring response. Each side therefore interprets identical events through different strategic and ideological lenses.
This is why overwhelming military superiority does not automatically produce political success. History offers numerous examples. The United States possessed overwhelming military superiority in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Israel has repeatedly demonstrated extraordinary military capabilities in Lebanon and Gaza. Yet tactical success has often failed to produce lasting political outcomes because opponents interpreted continued resistance as both necessary and legitimate. Wars are ultimately political contests fought with military instruments, not merely military competitions.
The same lesson may apply to Iran. Air power can destroy missile launchers, command centers, and military infrastructure. It cannot by itself eliminate political identity, religious conviction, or national resolve. Indeed, external military pressure sometimes strengthens internal cohesion rather than weakening it. Political psychologists refer to this phenomenon as the "rally-around-the-flag" effect, whereby external threats increase public support for national leadership regardless of prior political divisions.
This does not imply that Iranian society is politically unified. It clearly is not. Nor does it suggest that all Iranians support the government's policies. Rather, it suggests that foreign military attacks often shift attention from domestic disagreements toward national defense. Under those circumstances, leaders who invoke religious principles of proportional retaliation may find a receptive audience even among citizens who disagree with them on many other issues.
Understanding this dynamic does not require accepting the political claims of the Islamic Republic. It requires recognizing that conflicts are shaped not only by weapons and military balances but also by beliefs, narratives, and collective psychology. Analysts who ignore those factors risk misunderstanding why apparently rational military strategies sometimes fail to produce their intended political results.
If the current cycle continues, neither side is likely to achieve a decisive political victory through military means alone. Every new strike creates the conditions for another response. Every retaliation strengthens the political argument for another strike. The battlefield becomes less a path toward resolution than a mechanism for perpetuating conflict.
Breaking such a cycle requires more than military restraint. It requires each side to recognize that its opponent may be operating within a different conceptual framework. Strategic success depends not only on understanding an adversary's weapons but also on understanding how that adversary interprets the meaning of those weapons.
For nearly two centuries, the military theorist Carl von Clausewitz reminded us that war is the continuation of politics by other means. The current U.S.-Iran confrontation suggests an equally important lesson for the twenty-first century: war is also interpreted through culture, religion, history, and psychology. Ignoring those dimensions may produce tactical victories while leaving the political foundations of conflict untouched.
Until policymakers appreciate that reality, the cycle described in the Qur'anic principle of proportional retaliation-- and reinforced by reciprocal political incentives on both sides-- is likely to continue. Military exchanges may become more sophisticated, more destructive, and more technologically advanced. Yet without a political decision to step outside the logic of reciprocal retaliation, the war risks becoming self-sustaining.
References
The Holy Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:190.
The Holy Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:194.
Clausewitz, C. von. On War. Princeton University Press.
Esposito, J. L. (2003). The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. Oxford University Press.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
