Tehran has shattered many Americans' conventional thinking about crises.
In Washington, war seems to be imagined as a tactical event.
In Tehran, it is understood as a strategic struggle—indeed, a struggle for survival.
The Iranian leadership is acting as if they have entered a decisive confrontation over sovereignty, deterrence, and national survival, rather than engaging in another round of negotiations. This difference in strategic depth has already had a greater impact during the first month than any individual missile strike.
A faction fighting to improve negotiation conditions typically stops when the cost becomes uncomfortable.
A faction fighting because it believes defeat would jeopardize its future endures suffering differently, calculates differently, and escalates with a different kind of discipline.
Meanwhile, the Iranian authorities have seized an important internal political opportunity.
External aggression almost always shifts public sentiment within the targeted country, and Iran is no exception. Regardless of the internal grievances, divisions, and frustrations that existed within Iranian society before the war, the attacks by the United States and Israel have given Tehran a chance to unite the population around ideals of nationhood, flag, and national survival.
At such moments, even a government under criticism can reposition itself as the defender of the nation against foreign violence.
This does not eliminate internal tensions or magically resolve Iran’s domestic problems. But it does provide the leadership with a propaganda space—of patriotism, sacrifice, and resistance—that would otherwise be difficult to use under normal circumstances.
For the Iranian state, this may well be one of the most significant political effects of this war.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1861055050883083/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.