The recent escalation in the Middle East has brought the region to the brink of a larger conflict. Iran has responded to the June 13th Israeli attack, codenamed Operation Rising Lion, by striking U.S. bases in Qatar and Iraq. This attack followed targeted Israeli strikes on senior IRGC commanders, nuclear scientists, and air defense systems, suggesting an expectation of Iranian collapse. However, Iran absorbed the blow and responded with force, inflicting significant material and reputational damage on Israel. Media censorship within Israel concerning the impact of Iranian missile strikes further indicates the seriousness of the counterattack.
What was initially conceived as a quick, surgical strike has evolved into a protracted war of attrition. Iran’s resistance has rattled Israeli confidence and pushed the pro-Israel lobby in Washington to demand direct American military intervention. On June 21st, the United States reportedly bombed Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. In response, Iran has escalated the conflict by targeting Israeli settlements and warning of additional strikes. Iranian officials have declared that the door to diplomacy is now closed.
To accurately assess Iran’s next moves, it is essential to explore its strategic culture—a concept rooted in the beliefs, norms, and historical experiences that shape a nation’s security posture. Iran’s strategic behavior cannot be understood without acknowledging the deeply ingrained factors influencing its national psyche.
Iran’s cultural and historical identity plays a crucial role in shaping its strategic outlook. As a civilization with over 4,000 years of continuous history, Iran possesses a profound sense of pride in its imperial legacy, language, and traditions. The dominant ethnic group is Aryan, coexisting with Azeris, Arabs, Kurds, Baluchis, and others. Twelver Shi’ism is the official state religion, practiced by approximately 89% of the population.
The legacy of Shi’a Islam, particularly the doctrine of martyrdom, strongly influences Iran’s strategic thinking. Shi’a reverence for the Prophet’s family, especially the martyrdom of Imam Hussain, fosters a spirit of sacrifice and resistance. This belief manifested during the Iran-Iraq War, where Iranian youth, some as young as 14, volunteered to fight a technologically superior enemy backed by Western powers. Despite facing heavy losses, Iran’s resilience in that conflict set a precedent for its current posture of deterrence and defiance.
National pride also shapes Iran’s strategic behavior. Under the Pahlavi monarchy, particularly during the reign of Mohammad Reza Shah, Iran aspired to regional hegemony. Iran’s intervention in Oman during the Dhofar Rebellion (1962–1975) reflected ambitions of strategic leadership. However, the Shah’s regime also marked a period of repression, economic disparity, and overdependence on Western powers, culminating in the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
A pivotal event in modern Iranian memory is the 1953 CIA- and MI6-backed coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had nationalized Iran’s oil industry, angering British and American interests. Although widely supported by the Iranian public, he was ousted and the Shah was reinstated. This event entrenched deep suspicion toward the West and solidified the narrative of foreign exploitation.
The 1979 revolution, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was both anti-monarchical and anti-imperialist. While it was a domestic uprising against the Shah’s authoritarianism, the West interpreted it as a direct challenge to its influence in the region. Since then, Iran has viewed Western policies—sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military encirclement,as attempts to undermine its sovereignty.
Iran’s strategic culture thus rests on three pillars: religious conviction rooted in Shi’a martyrdom, historical pride in Persian civilization, and a collective memory of foreign exploitation and resistance. This unique synthesis produces a national security mindset that values autonomy, deterrence, and strategic patience.
In the current conflict, Iran’s reaction to U.S. and Israeli aggression has been shaped by these enduring values. The country has retaliated across multiple domains, missile strikes, cyber operations, and regional alliances. Pro-Iranian groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis are reportedly preparing to escalate, while Iranian cyber units target Israeli infrastructure.
Iran’s Parliament has signaled the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a move with profound implications for global oil markets. However, analysts suggest that a full closure is unlikely, as it would harm China and Europe more than the United States, inadvertently pushing European powers further into American strategic orbit.
Looking ahead, Iran is expected to continue leveraging asymmetric strategies. It will maintain pressure on U.S. assets in the region, support allied non-state actors, and employ cyber warfare while avoiding direct confrontation with the U.S. that could trigger full-scale war. Paradoxically, such restraint, combined with calibrated escalation, serves to reinforce its deterrence. Its strategic culture dictates that it will not submit under pressure but rather escalate until it secures deterrence and strategic parity.
In conclusion, any U.S.-Israeli effort to change the Iranian regime through force is likely to backfire. Iran’s strategic culture ensures it will remain defiant, and any miscalculation could engulf the region in wider conflict. While Israel may seek short-term gains, the long-term consequences for the United States could include diminishing influence in the Middle East and a collapse of the regional order it helped construct.
