The price of miscalculation

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was finally unveiled a few days ago only reaffirmed how misguided the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28 was, as by every account and careful analysis, despite Iran's heavy losses, it has come out on top. Should the US and Iran negotiate the various provisions of the MUO in good faith, the latter will likely gain considerably more at the negotiating table than it would have before the war.

Before we delve into the reasons why Iran has emerged victorious despite its massive losses, it is important to revisit the reasons why the US and Israel attacked Iran in the first place and why they failed to achieve any of the objectives that they set out to accomplish. The war's stated objectives-regime change, the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program, the curtailment of its ballistic missile arsenal, and the weakening of its regional proxy network-were not merely ambitious; they were fundamentally detached from what defines Iran as a state, a society, and a strategic actor. The US' and Israel's failure should not come as a surprise. It was, in fact, predictable.

Before any military confrontation or serious negotiation, a state must rigorously assess its adversary across several dimensions: political structure, ideological conviction, historical experience, cultural identity, geostrategic positioning, and national aspirations. In the case of Iran, the US and Israel ignored the implications of these dimensions that characterize the country and how they might manifest themselves in a time of national crisis.

Iran's psychological national mindset is anchored in a powerful sense of civilizational continuity and historical grievance, fusing Persian pride with an acute memory of foreign intervention and betrayal. This produces a deeply entrenched siege mentality-a conviction that Iran must rely on self reliance, strategic patience, and asymmetric power to withstand external threats-let alone existential ones-and to preserve its revolutionary identity at home and across the region.

Politically, Iran is not a fragile state susceptible to rapid political internal breakdown. Its governing system, complex, layered, and deeply entrenched, has demonstrated remarkable durability. The regime's political cohesion, particularly among its security apparatus in support of the regime, has repeatedly proven resilient in the face of both domestic unrest and international sanctions and military threats.

Ideologically, Iran's leadership operates within a framework where religion and governance are inseparable. The Islamic Republic's worldview is not merely strategic but also ideological and theological. It perceives resistance to external pressure, particularly from the US and Israel, as both a political necessity and a religious duty. This ideological foundation reinforces, rather than weakens, the regime under attack. External aggression tends to consolidate internal support rather than ignite a popular uprising, as was hoped.

Historically, Iran's sense of identity is shaped by more than 2,500 years of history. This long civilizational memory has cultivated a deep-seated buoyancy and a capacity to absorb and outlast external threats. Unlike younger states, which lack that historical perspective, their endurance becomes far more brittle. Iran draws strength from its continuous survival and adaptation. This historical consciousness cannot be bombed out of existence, as Iran has proved.

Culturally, Iran is a nation of profound pride and sophistication. Iran's deep intellectual, artistic, and philosophical heritage contributes to a strong national identity that resists humiliation. Any strategy predicated on coercion or submission fundamentally misunderstands this cultural reality. Iranians, regardless of their views on the regime, will not accept externally imposed dictates that compromise national dignity.

Geostrategically, Iran occupies one of the world's most critical positions. Its proximity to the Strait of Hormuz-through which one-fifth of global energy supplies pass-grants it immense leverage, as demonstrated by Tehran's closure of the Strait. Combined with its natural resources and substantial human capital, Iran is not easily isolated or neutralized. The failure to account for this reality has triggered a global economic disruption, especially in the oil and gas sectors.

Military Capabilities: The US and Israel failed to accurately assess Iran's military capabilities, including its vast arsenal of missiles and drones, along with proxies capable of asymmetric warfare. Its armed forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have for years been in combat readiness and deeply committed to regime preservation. This ensured that Iran would absorb the attacks and continue to retaliate unabatedly.

The Memorandum of Understanding

The extent of the US and Israel's miscalculation becomes clearer. The MOU ensures freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz-something that existed before the war-and reaffirmation that Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons, a position Tehran has publicly maintained for years. These provisions amount to a return to the status quo rather than a strategic breakthrough.