Donald Trump’s confrontation with Iran appears to have been built on a fundamental misreading of the country he chose to confront. The assumption in Washington seemed to be that a sudden decapitation strike against Iran’s leadership could trigger a rapid political collapse. In that scenario, eliminating senior figures would produce confusion inside the system, spark internal competition for power and potentially encourage political actors inside the country to align themselves with the United States. Variations of this strategy have appeared before in American foreign policy thinking, particularly in states whose institutions are weak or heavily dependent on a single leader. Yet the reaction that followed the opening phase of the war demonstrated that Iran operates under a very different political logic.

Rather than disintegrating, Iran’s political and military structures reorganised with surprising speed. Even after the initial shock of coordinated strikes against senior leadership figures, the state apparatus continued to function. The expectation that leadership removal would automatically translate into regime collapse overlooked a key characteristic of the Iranian system: its institutional depth. Unlike highly personalised regimes where authority is concentrated in a narrow circle, Iran’s political system functions through overlapping layers of institutions that extend from national decision-making bodies to provincial and local governance structures. This networked structure makes sudden collapse far less likely than many outside observers assume.

Equally important was the misunderstanding of Iran’s security institutions. Outside analysis often describes the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij primarily as military organisations. Yet within Iran they represent something broader than a conventional armed force. They function not only as security institutions but also as carriers of an ideological framework that connects the state with segments of society. In contrast to the dynamics seen in some states where military factions compete for power after leadership crises, these organisations in Iran are embedded within a political narrative centered on resistance, sovereignty and national dignity.

Unlike highly personalised regimes where authority is concentrated in a narrow circle, Iran’s political system functions through overlapping layers of institutions that extend from national decision-making bodies to provincial and local governance structures.

This ideological dimension cannot be separated from the country’s historical self-perception. Many Iranians view their country not simply as a modern state but as a civilization with deep historical continuity. References to figures such as Cyrus the Great or Nader Shah remain part of the cultural memory associated with statehood and national survival. Alongside this national historical narrative sits a powerful religious tradition. The annual commemoration of Ashura and the story of Karbala have, for centuries, reinforced themes of sacrifice, endurance and resistance against overwhelming force. These national and religious traditions together shape a political culture in which preserving dignity and sovereignty carries enormous symbolic importance.

READ: Trump fell into Iran’s trap

Washington’s second miscalculation concerned the nature of the battlefield itself. The United States appeared to expect a largely conventional confrontation in which technological superiority would define the conflict. The deployment of advanced aircraft and naval assets suggested confidence that overwhelming firepower could deter Iran or compel it to retreat. Yet Iran’s military doctrine has never been based on symmetrical warfare. Instead, its strategy emphasizes asymmetric responses designed to impose costs on stronger adversaries rather than defeat them in conventional battles.

This doctrine is closely tied to geography. Few places illustrate this more clearly than the Strait of Hormuz. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, roughly one-fifth of global petroleum consumption passes through this narrow maritime corridor each day. Even limited disruptions to shipping in the area can send shockwaves through global energy markets. In recent weeks, fluctuations in oil prices and insurance costs for maritime transport have demonstrated how quickly regional tensions can transform into global economic consequences. Reports from Reuters and Bloomberg have already noted how instability around Gulf shipping routes has pushed markets to reassess supply risks.

Iran’s military doctrine has never been based on symmetrical warfare. Instead, its strategy emphasizes asymmetric responses designed to impose costs on stronger adversaries rather than defeat them in conventional battles.

In this sense, the conflict rapidly moved beyond a traditional military confrontation. It became a struggle across multiple domains: military, economic and psychological. While missiles and air defenses dominate headlines, the broader impact has been felt in global commodity markets, investment environments and strategic calculations across the Middle East. Energy infrastructure, trade routes and financial hubs have all been drawn into the strategic equation.

For the Persian Gulf states, the conflict has exposed uncomfortable questions about regional security arrangements. For decades many governments in the region relied heavily on the assumption that American military presence would guarantee stability. Yet the unfolding crisis suggests that regional security is far more fragile than previously believed. Rising insurance premiums for shipping, disrupted trade flows and growing uncertainty around energy routes have already begun to alter economic calculations in cities such as Dubai and Doha. Even if the war eventually de-escalates, the perception of security that once surrounded these economic hubs has been visibly shaken.

Iran will not collapse: What the US–Israel War reveals about power in the Middle East

The broader geopolitical implications may be even more significant. If Iran emerges from the conflict without political collapse, it will likely frame the war as proof of its resilience. The narrative would emphasize that the country withstood pressure from two technologically superior military powers while continuing to operate its political institutions and strategic networks. Such a perception could reshape how regional actors evaluate Iran’s role in the Middle East. It could also deepen skepticism toward the reliability of external security guarantees.

Instead of producing rapid regime collapse, the initial strike appears to have reinforced the very political narrative that Iranian institutions are built upon. 

Ultimately, the most striking aspect of the conflict is how dramatically it diverged from Washington’s original expectations. Instead of producing rapid regime collapse, the initial strike appears to have reinforced the very political narrative that Iranian institutions are built upon. The strategy assumed that removing leaders would weaken the state. Instead, it highlighted the resilience of a political system that is rooted not only in institutions but also in historical identity and ideological cohesion.

In this sense, the war may ultimately be remembered less as a demonstration of American military power and more as an example of strategic misunderstanding. Confronting Iran requires more than assessing missile ranges, aircraft fleets or naval deployments. It requires understanding the historical memory, institutional structures and political culture that shape the country’s response to external pressure. Without that understanding, even overwhelming military power can lead to a conflict whose consequences extend far beyond the battlefield.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor