There is a stark contrast between Western foreign policy views and perceptions, and the ideological framework of Iran’s theocratic regime.
While Western diplomats, pundits, and analysts often find solace when the guns go silent, coining the term “de-escalation,” this perspective fails to resonate with Tehran, which perceives war as an ongoing state rather than a temporary aberration of the international order.
This fundamental divergence has resulted in nearly 50 years of conflict that have left the free world to grapple with a delusional understanding of peace and war.
Western thought on warfare is largely influenced by Carl von Clausewitz, who famously articulated that war is “the continuation of politics by other means.” This concept underpins various international agreements and legal tenets, such as the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. The assumption is that wars commence and conclude, governed by established rules to facilitate the transition back to peace.
However, such beliefs present vulnerabilities that revolutionary movements effectively exploited.
Revolutionaries – whether they were inspired by Marx, Mao, Gramsci, or Fanon – recognized that the power struggle is perpetual. War, for them, is not a discrete event; rather, it morphs and continues indefinitely until the ultimate objective is reached. By redefining the meaning of “peacetime” as a variant of war, movements guided by radical ideologies, such as ISIS, Hamas, and the Iranian regime, render the prospect of lasting stability nearly impossible.
The 1979 storming of the US Embassy marked the outbreak of an enduring conflict, as Tehran engaged in a relentless pursuit of influence to export its Islamic Revolution.
The Iranian regime’s unwavering commitment to anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism is reflected in its slogans and official doctrines. It has not merely employed rhetoric; it has actively engaged in bloody endeavors, supporting groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, while pursuing an ever-expanding nuclear program and ballistic missile arsenal. Each of these actions represents a facet of the same ongoing conflict, which persists even amid Western attempts to impose a narrative of managed peace.
Iran adeptly exploits the very legal frameworks established by the West, which require the presence of an imminent threat for military action to be justified. This legal doctrine has provided Iran with a tactical advantage, allowing it to build its military capabilities while avoiding confrontation incrementally. Each ceasefire, diplomatic gesture, or sanction relief was interpreted in Tehran as Western weakness and an opportunity to regroup and bolster Iran’s power.
The critical question remains: Does managing current conflicts neutralize the threats posed by Iran?
Historical evidence suggests that this is not the case. Extremist entities like Hamas and Hezbollah have rebuilt their capacities after each escalation, while Iran has advanced its nuclear program. This pattern indicates that treating symptoms rather than addressing root causes only sets the stage for graver challenges down the road.
Leaders such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump, who recognized this, were labeled as warmongers. The prevalent and naive attitude among policy-makers has been to differentiate between the Iranian regime’s violent rhetoric and its strategic intentions, frequently pushing for more diplomatic avenues rather than confronting the underlying threat.
US, Israel acknowledge reality
The actions currently being undertaken by Israel and the US should not be viewed as acts of aggression, but rather as recognition of reality. Acknowledging that the conflict with Iran commenced in 1979 – and that the West’s prolonged patience has often enabled escalation – is crucial. Moreover, the idea of a nuclear-capable Iran, with ballistic missiles to boot, is not merely a point for future diplomatic negotiations, but poses an existential threat to regional stability and the global economy.
Destroying Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, dismantling its missile programs, and disrupting its proxy networks are not the beginning of a new conflict; they are, in fact, a long-overdue response to a war that Iran instigated.
Success will not hinge on the duration or cost of these operations but on achieving irreversibility. Each dismantled facility and every impaired military capability creates lasting effects that are integral to concluding a conflict that Tehran has always engaged in as a perpetual effort.
Iran’s intentions have been clear from the beginning. The pivotal question is not what Iran desires but whether the West will finally recognize reality and take decisive action.
Clear-eyed leaders like Netanyahu and Trump understand the time has come to finish Iran’s endless war to ensure a more stable future for the Middle East and the world.
The writer is a senior analyst at Acumen Risk, LLC.