War with Iran: A dangerous misreading

2026-03-08 - 21:13

The present confrontation between Iranian, Israeli, and American forces can transform into an international war engulfing many countries. The war has unfolded rapidly, and the plans were the first casualty of war. The War is surely not unfolding as planned or anticipated, and it is evident that it was executed in haste without thorough planning, and the shortfalls are now visible, igniting public outrage. Yet beyond the analysis of means employed lies a question: has this war been launched against the wrong adversary and at the wrong moment? Wars are not determined solely by military power. History, belief systems, and the political psychology of nations shape them. In this respect, Iran is unlike many states that Western powers have confronted in recent decades The first critical miscalculation may lie in the religious dimension of Iranian society. Iran is the center of Shi’a Islam, a branch of the faith whose collective memory is deeply rooted in the tragedy of Karbala in 680 CE. This marks the resilience and sacrifice in the shape of martyrdom of the family of Imam Hussain (the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad PBUH), and his fellows, which is deeply rooted in the culture. Sacrifice is embedded in the Iranian culture; it is not considered a loss but an ultimate pinnacle of a sacrifice, as martyrdom is the highest pedestal desired by every Muslim. War takes on new significance when political leaders act from this perspective. The focus moves from military defeat to religious atonement if a leader dies as a martyr. The killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, therefore, carries enormous symbolic implications. A religious and political leader is revered by Shi’a followers and other Muslim faiths with a degree of awe and respect similar to that accorded the Pope by Catholics. Such a death does not simply remove a leader. It risks transforming him into a symbol capable of mobilizing religious and political solidarity across borders. This dynamic is further complicated by the timing of the attack. The fighting broke out during the height of Ramadan, a sacred time for Muslims around the world. Ramadan is a time of spiritual renewal, patience, and unity for Muslims around the world.Bloodshed and war in this holy month is prohibited unless in self-defence. A second miscalculation may lie in comparing Iran to previous military interventions, particularly Iraq in 2003.The Iranians are the most resilient civilization, which is enriched by Persian culture, extending from the Achaemenid Empire of Cyrus the Great to the Safavid and Qajar dynasties. Greeks, Mongols and Colonial forces have not been able to take away the political and cultural identity despite invasions and attempts over the years. More recently, Iran’s contemporary strategic culture was moulded by the Iran-Iraq War, which lasted from 1980 to 1988.Iran endured an eight-year war that decimated its economy and population, but in the end, it strengthened a national narrative of perseverance and sacrifice despite facing international isolation and massive casualties. Iranian strategy has long been built on patience, asymmetric warfare, and preparation for prolonged confrontation rather than quick battlefield victories. For years, Tehran has anticipated the possibility of confrontation with the United States and Israel, especially after the Iraq war. The regional tensions and limited exchanges of recent years likely reinforced those expectations. As a result, contingency planning, military, political, and ideological transformation have been part of Iran’s strategic calculus. This conduct of warraises concerns about international law and diplomatic standards. The geographical integrity and political independence of any state should not be compromised through the application of force, as articulated in the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2(4). The United Nations Security Council and Article 51, which allows for self-defence in response to an armed attack, are the standard legal justifications for military action. Equally significant is the timing of the strikes during ongoing diplomatic efforts. Negotiations concerning Iran’s nuclear program had been underway through indirect diplomatic channels. Launching military action while negotiations are active and progressing well undermines one of the most fundamental principles of diplomacy: that dialogue should not take place under the shadow of sudden military escalation. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) and customary international law serve as a watchdog over conflicts, which establishes the limits of armed combat. To ensure proportionality, all parties to the Geneva Conventions, LOAC, and other treaties are mandated to distinguish between military targets and civilian populations. In the present conflict, the innocent girls have also been targeted in the school, UNESCO-declared heritage sites have been destroyed, and a military ship returning from India after an exercise has been targeted, which is a blatant violation of the above principles. By attacking Iran during the holy month of Ramadan, targeting both a religious leader and a head of state while diplomatic talks remain underway, the US and Israel may have unleashed forces that no conventional military strategy can contain. It all boils down to the choices taken in the next weeks as to whether this war stays confined or becomes a century-defining calamity. War seldom ends where it begins, but one thing is abundantly obvious from historical precedent: when religious beliefs, personal identity, and national pride clash, the result is usually a bloodbath. Food for though is that, since the supreme leader’s fatwa regarding the Nuclear Program could only be lifted by his own sacrifice, it is important to determine if this aggression has given an excuse / way out of that limit, and now they are free to achieve it in much shorter time. —The writer is an international law expert and an internationally accredited arbitrator and mediator.