The West is well equipped for high-tech pyrotechnic assaults, economic and cyber warfare, and the like – yet it remains unfit for protracted, high-intensity conflicts.
Even the world’s foremost military superpower finds itself hamstrung by the limitations of its political home front, while Israel and other Western allies in the Middle East must constantly navigate the enduring geopolitical implications.
US President Donald Trump pitched the framework agreement of his country with Iran as pouring oil on troubled waters. Across the Middle East, this agreement is being viewed for what it is: a classic “blood-for-oil” deal.
In a bizarre twist, leaders from both countries are claiming total victory over the other, and if they are both right, we have stumbled upon the ultimate “win-win” scenario – an achievement that should inspire warmongers around the globe – and put both presidents on the fast track for the next Nobel Prize for War.
But if this is what victory looks like, who cares about losing?
The present commentary examines the state of Western esprit de corps – collective spirit – exploring how rhetoric simultaneously obscures and exposes reality, with a specific focus on the American context.
Some critics argue that while the president initially demanded Iran’s unconditional surrender following the successful American (and Israeli) bombing campaign, this Memorandum of Understanding represents an almost unconditional surrender by the United States.
This might be an overstatement; the war could easily reignite in the coming months if Iran overplays its hand. Yet, regardless of the final outcome, the negotiations and the resulting MoU clearly expose the vulnerabilities of the US military posture.
During negotiations, Trump frequently claimed that Iran “desperately wants a deal” – a narrative that Iran’s “good cop” negotiators successfully sold to American officials. What Trump omitted, however, was that he wanted a deal even more desperately, virtually at any cost.
In the “who blinks first” games of the Middle Eastern bazaar, that’s all that counts. The Iranians likely sensed American “weakness” during their very first interactions, possessing a keen understanding of the underlying domestic politics and the broader Western mindset. For them, it has become a sport: never blink first, even when you have every reason to.
Importance of social cohesion for society
As Ibn Khaldun – the great 14th-century Muslim philosopher of history – pointed out, security and survival of tribal groups and societies ultimately depend on societal cohesion and devotion to maintain collective honor.
War propaganda and psychological warfare – marked by provocation, threats, and ridicule – have a highly sophisticated, ancient tradition in Middle Eastern societies. Interestingly, Donald Trump, in stark contrast to the broader Western political establishment, instinctively employs this martial rhetoric.
Trump seems to “speak” some Persian. Combined with his calculated unpredictability, this approach has served US interests to a certain extent. Yet, this tactical alignment changes neither the core vocabulary of his administration nor the profoundly asymmetric nature of the current rhetorical-psychological warfare.
Like his Iranian adversaries, the president does whatever it takes to save face, protect his country’s honor, and salvage its military reputation. This included even making absurd claims to his audiences that a “regime change” has occurred in Iran, and poorly conceived threats to terminate “a whole civilization.”
Trump’s talk of Iran’s “military defeat” reflects the American value system, drawing a sharp line between the military and civilian spheres.
Conversely, when Iranian leaders speak of their “humiliating” victory over the US, they employ deeply religious rhetoric, framing the conflict as a triumph of collective spiritual morale over a materialistic, fractured West.
The US military projects enormous power, but its political masters – chief among them the president as commander-in-chief – project profound weakness.
Frequent presidential declarations of military and diplomatic victory do little to hide the intense political pressures influencing command decisions, and reveal how Washington’s leadership prevented its own armed forces (and the Israeli military) from successfully concluding an otherwise meticulously planned campaign – punctuated by the critical failure at the Strait of Hormuz.
There are plenty of reasons behind the West’s deep-seated dread of a decisive victory – but that fear isn’t the only thing undermining its wartime posture. Five additional strategic vulnerabilities stand out:
1. Political instability: Autocratic and semi-autocratic regimes, such as Iran, possess a level of political stability, long-term planning, and strategic patience in security matters that is virtually unknown in the fragile, election-driven cycles of Western democracies.
2. Fractured unity: During conflicts, Western opposition parties and liberal media often weaken national solidarity, damaging domestic and international legitimacy.
3. Demographic disconnect: Socio-economic trends like urbanization and immigration have severed the traditional, deep-rooted connection to the land. Consequently, a growing portion of the populace feels little compulsion to defend it.
4. The post-Second World War peace dividend: Decades of peace since World War II have removed immediate existential threats, inadvertently creating fertile ground for pacifist complacency.
5. Aversion to Sacrifice: Today’s public in the West has a low threshold for hardship, and there is a sharp decline in the societal willingness to accept casualties or make the sacrifices necessary for defense.
On the periphery of the democratic West and outside the umbrella of NATO, Israel is affected only by the second consideration, and only partially by the first. It has a powerful and experienced popular army, and a resilient hinterland.
Ironically, there is only one NATO-member in the region that shares these attributes: Israel-bashing Turkey. In the arenas of diplomacy and conflict, communication is asymmetrical: Iran speaks fluent English – the language of its adversaries.
The United States merely stutters in Arabic and Persian. Israel occupies a liminal position, a unique geopolitical space. To maintain its strategic edge, it needs regular practice to sharpen its command of all three languages. ...And perhaps its Turkish, too.