Iran’s choice not to respond militarily to major provocations was often read as weakness. That interpretation as now been proven was wrong. Iran has the capacity to go to war. It has an extensive missile arsenal that could severely damage regional targets. The reason it hadn't used that power is not because it lacked it all. Iran had long made the strategic decision to avoid war.
Despite years of sanctions, targeted assassinations, and covert operations against it, Iran had not launched a full-scale military response to all provocations. Its embassy in Lebanon was attacked. One of its key generals was killed in a drone strike in Iraq. Such blatant provocative acts would have led many nations to declare war. Iran didn’t. That restraint was not a signal of impotence, but a masterful political calculation.
For decades, Iran has tried to open the door to diplomatic and economic relations with the United States. The effort has gone nowhere. Each U.S. administration has moved the bar. Now the position, articulated by Israeli leadership and echoed in Washington, is that Iran must effectively dismantle itself as a functioning sovereign power before any rapprochement can begin. Such a demand was not a negotiating position, the US does not do diplomacy. The aim was a demand for surrender of sovereignty. The ultimate goal as is now well known, was to achieve that via a regime change.
The reference to Libya is not incidental. Libya gave up its weapons program under Western pressure. Within a few years, its government was destroyed, its leader was killed, and the country collapsed into chaos. Iran has studied that outcome closely. It sees the demand to “be like Libya” not as a path to peace, but as a trap.
There is also a broader regional context. Claims that Iran is the main destabilizer in the Middle East ignore the fact that most states in the region are trying to avoid war. The record shows that Iran, unlike Israel or the United States, has avoided direct large-scale conflict. Iran’s military posture has been defensive and retaliatory, not preemptive.
This mirrors the pattern seen with Russia. For years, Western powers pushed NATO closer to Russia’s borders. They imposed sanctions, funded political opposition, and carried out public diplomatic humiliation. For a long time, Russia absorbed it. That patience was misread as weakness too. When Russia finally acted, the result was a major European war.
The point here is not to justify war. The point is to understand how wars actually start. Misreading political calculation as weakness is one of the fastest ways to get there. Assuming a country won’t fight because it hasn’t yet is a mistake. Iran, in all the past years, never responded with war, not because it couldn’t, but because it made the decision not to. That lasted so long, but now the dam wall has broken.
In the current situation, Iran is being told that no amount of compromise will ever be enough. At the same time, it is being pushed into a corner with escalating military threats and economic warfare. The incentive to keep absorbing punishment without response has vanished.
Washington’s view, echoed by its regional allies, is that force works. That posture risks producing exactly the outcome they claim to want to avoid. It assumes opponents are bluffing, that they are incapable or unwilling to respond. But history shows that at a certain point, restraint ends. And when it does, like as happened already, the result turns out to be beyond managed escalation. It’s war.
(NB: article written prior to Iranian retaliation, some edits made to align with the escalation)
If you think my voice should be heard louder then PLEASE support by becoming a paid subscriber. I have minimal overheads, no sponsors to sell myself or soul to, no bosses who tell me what to write (or NOT write), or staff I have to pay. I’m here for your raw, straight, and dedicated analyses. Your support is appreciated. Thank you.
buymeacoffee.com/ggtv
Share this post