Military damage can be measured quickly. Strategic success depends on whether force changes Tehran’s political calculations rather than reinforcing the meaning of resistance.

New U.S. strikes on Iran in early September, among the most substantial exchanges since July, again put a familiar measure of wartime success at center stage: what was hit, destroyed, or disabled. But the harder question begins after the damage is counted. If the purpose of force is not merely to remove a target but to change Tehran’s behavior, then the real test is not “What was destroyed?” but “What changed?”

That distinction matters especially in Iran. The country is not simply a collection of facilities, missiles, and command centers whose future can be judged by a damage assessment. External pressure enters a political and social environment shaped by historical experience, perceptions of national security, and ideas about national survival.

This does not mean that an attack automatically unifies Iranian society or erases deep internal divisions. It means that an external threat can temporarily reorder political priorities, placing national defense ahead of some domestic disputes.

This does not mean that an attack automatically unifies Iranian society or erases deep internal divisions. It means that an external threat can temporarily reorder political priorities, placing national defense ahead of some domestic disputes.

Historical memory is central to that process. The eight-year Iran-Iraq War remains bound in Iranian political memory to territorial defense, sacrifice, resistance, and the costs of foreign aggression. Such memories do not remain confined to history. When a new threat appears, they can........

© Middle East Monitor