A Presidential Daily Brief - Know Your Enemy if You Wish to Prevail
Wars between states are rarely decided by direct combat alone. They are decided by the collision of wills - purpose, identity, sacrifice, and the capacity of a society to endure pressure longer than its adversary expects. Strategic history repeatedly demonstrates that nations whose leadership believes it is defending sovereignty, dignity, and historical continuity often prove far more resilient than outside observers anticipate.
This is the reality with respect to Iran.
The present confrontation between the United States and Iran illustrates this principle in real time. Policymakers in Washington face a strategic question that has confronted great powers for centuries: can coercive pressure force a determined adversary to abandon what it believes to be a core national interest?
Pakistan Talks Were Defined by: Take it or Leave it!
Recent “diplomatic engagement” between Washington and Tehran has failed to produce a breakthrough. Negotiations intended to reopen a path toward limits on Iran’s nuclear program collapsed without agreement.
In the aftermath, the confrontation has shifted toward intensified economic and military pressure, including efforts to restrict Iranian oil exports through maritime enforcement blockade in and around the Strait of Hormuz.
Cost in Billions a Day, as Congress Debates War Powers
From Washington’s perspective the objective is straightforward. The United States seeks to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability while constraining its support for proxy forces operating across the Middle East. Those concerns are grounded in legitimate security calculations. Yet the effectiveness of pressure depends not only on capability but on how the targeted state interprets the confrontation itself.
National Security Council Review
Understanding Iran therefore requires more than analyzing centrifuge counts or missile inventories. It requires understanding how Iranian leaders interpret the strategic environment, how historical memory shapes their political psychology, and why pressure alone may not produce the outcome many analysts expect.
For the United States the confrontation with Iran is primarily a war of policy. Washington seeks to change Iranian behavior: halt nuclear escalation, limit regional proxy networks, and reduce the risk of wider war in the Middle East.
For Iran the confrontation is perceived through a different lens. Iranian leaders frame the struggle as a defense of sovereignty and civilizational identity against foreign coercion. When a state believes it is defending survival rather than negotiating policy, its tolerance for pain often increases dramatically.
This distinction matters because wars of survival are fought differently from wars of policy.
A government seeking policy concessions may eventually compromise if costs rise high enough. A government convinced it is defending its historical legitimacy often chooses endurance instead.
FOOT STOMP
History repeatedly demonstrates this pattern. Vietnam endured overwhelming military pressure yet continued fighting ten years for national unification. Afghanistan absorbed two decades of intervention without surrendering political autonomy. North Korea has withstood generations of sanctions while preserving its strategic programs.
In each case outside powers underestimated the adversary’s willingness to endure hardship in pursuit of perceived survival.
Iranian leaders study these historical precedents closely.
THE SUNNI SHIA DIVIDE
To understand the depth of Iran’s strategic outlook it is necessary to look further back than the events of the last few decades.
The roots of Iran’s political worldview are intertwined with the long historical divide within Islam between Sunni and Shia traditions.
The divide began immediately after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 AD. The early Muslim community confronted a fundamental question: who possessed legitimate authority to lead the Islamic world.
One group believed leadership should be determined by consensus among the Prophet’s companions. They supported Abu Bakr, a close associate of Muhammad, as the first caliph. These followers eventually became known as Sunnis, referring to the Sunna, or tradition, of the Prophet.
Another group believed leadership should remain within Muhammad’s family through his cousin and son-in-law Ali ibn Abi Talib. These followers became known as the Shiat Ali, the party of Ali, later shortened to Shia.
The dispute quickly expanded beyond succession. It evolved into a broader struggle over religious authority, legitimacy, and the nature of Islamic governance. The defining trauma of Shia identity occurred in 680 AD at the Battle of Karbala, when Husayn, the grandson of the Prophet, was killed by forces loyal to the Sunni caliphate.
For Shia Muslims Karbala became a sacred narrative of martyrdom and resistance against illegitimate rule. The story of sacrifice and endurance embedded itself deeply within Shia political consciousness.
Over centuries the divide hardened into distinct theological traditions and political identities.
Today the Sunni-Shia distinction continues to shape alliances, rivalries, and conflicts across the Middle East.
Iran occupies a unique position within this historical landscape. The country is not simply another state within the Islamic world. It is also the inheritor of one of the world’s oldest continuous civilizations.
Long before the emergence of modern European states, the Persian empires of antiquity governed vast territories stretching from the Mediterranean to Central Asia. Persian language, literature, and cultural identity survived successive waves of conquest, including the Arab expansion of the seventh century.
Even after the Islamic transformation of Persia, Iranian civilization retained its distinct cultural character. Persian identity adapted to new political realities without disappearing.
The decisive moment linking Persian identity with Shia Islam came during the sixteenth century when the Safavid dynasty established Shia Islam as the official state religion.
That decision created a durable civilizational distinction between Persian Iran and the largely Sunni Arab world surrounding it.
The Safavid transformation reshaped the political geography of the Middle East. Iran emerged as the principal center of Shia religious authority, while the Ottoman Empire represented the dominant Sunni power of the era.
This historical legacy remains deeply embedded in modern Iranian political thought. Iranian leaders often describe their country not merely as a nation-state but as a civilization with thousands of years of continuity.
That civilizational perspective influences how Iranian policymakers interpret external pressure. When sanctions, military threats, or diplomatic isolation occur, they are often interpreted through a narrative of resistance against foreign domination.
Iranian strategic culture therefore places significant emphasis on endurance. The political system created after the 1979 Iranian Revolution fused religious authority with revolutionary nationalism. Leaders portrayed the Islamic Republic as reclaiming sovereignty after decades of perceived foreign interference.
Within this framework endurance becomes a form of resistance. Economic hardship can be framed as sacrifice in defense of independence. External pressure becomes proof that the nation is standing against powerful adversaries.
This psychological dynamic complicates coercive strategies.
Iran’s military doctrine reflects the same strategic logic. Iranian planners recognize that the United States possesses overwhelming conventional military superiority. Rather than attempting to match American capabilities symmetrically, Iran has developed an asymmetric strategy designed to raise the cost of conflict.
Proxy networks play a central role in that strategy. Iranian support for groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq, and allied forces in Syria and Yemen creates layers of strategic depth beyond Iran’s borders.
From Tehran’s perspective these networks deter attack and expand influence while avoiding direct confrontation with stronger adversaries.
Critics view the same networks as destabilizing instruments of regional interference. Regardless of interpretation, the result is a distributed system of influence that cannot easily be dismantled by targeting Iran itself.
Geography reinforces this asymmetric approach. Iran sits astride one of the most strategically significant waterways in the global economy: the Strait of Hormuz
Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil shipments pass through this narrow corridor between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. Iranian coastal defenses, naval forces, and missile systems give Tehran the ability to threaten maritime traffic if conflict escalates
Further west lies the Bab al-Mandab Strait connecting the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean. Instability in Yemen and the presence of Iranian-aligned forces near this corridor create additional vulnerabilities for global shipping.
These maritime chokepoints illustrate how regional conflict can quickly produce global consequences.
The rivalry between Iran and Sunni Arab governments further complicates the strategic environment. Saudi Arabia and several Gulf monarchies view Iranian influence as a direct challenge to regional balance of power.
Many of these states contain Shia minority populations and fear that Iranian ideological influence could destabilize their internal political order. Israel also views Iran as its most significant regional adversary due to Tehran’s support for armed groups operating along Israel’s borders.
These overlapping rivalries ensure that pressure on Iran rarely comes from a single direction. Instead Tehran faces a network of regional competitors aligned with Western security partnerships.
Saudi Arabia (Sunni) prefers the United States “finish its enemy, and historical opportunity.”
Israel prefers the same, finish its enemy in Iran, and against the proxies, and in Lebanon.
So what is our national security strategy? What and for who are we fighting?
Yet, while sorting that out, even intense US economic blockade pressure may fail to produce the intended strategic outcome.
Sanctions unquestionably damage Iran’s economy. Currency volatility, restricted access to financial markets, and limits on energy exports create real hardship.
But historical experience suggests that economic pain alone rarely compels governments to abandon programs tied to national identity or security.
We Must Learn From History
Sanctions did not force North Korea to relinquish nuclear weapons. They did not topple Cuba’s revolutionary government. They did not compel Saddam Hussein to surrender power before the invasion of Iraq.
Iranian leaders are well aware of these precedents.
When sanctions intensify, Iranian political messaging frequently frames the pressure as evidence of foreign hostility. Resistance becomes a symbol of national dignity.
The result is a paradox familiar throughout strategic history: the more pressure applied, the stronger domestic narratives of resistance can become.
This dynamic raises the risk of strategic miscalculation. If policymakers underestimate Iranian endurance, escalation pathways will emerge that neither side intended:
Energy infrastructure across the Persian Gulf will become a target.
Maritime shipping lanes will be mined and face disruption, or attacks.
Proxy conflicts across the region will intensify.
Cyber operations targeting economic systems will expand to the continental United States.
Given the central role of Persian Gulf energy supplies in the global economy, such escalation will not remain a regional crisis for long.
It will be a world crisis.
Ultimately the confrontation between the United States and Iran cannot be understood solely through military balance sheets or sanctions statistics. The deeper challenge is understanding how each side interprets the struggle itself.
Iranian leaders believe they are defending sovereignty, identity, and civilizational continuity. American policymakers believe they are preventing the emergence of a nuclear-armed state capable of destabilizing the region.
Both sides therefore frame the confrontation in existential terms, though for different reasons.
This mutual perception is precisely what makes the problem of Iranian will so difficult.
History suggests that conflicts framed as struggles over identity and legitimacy rarely end through coercion alone.
Sustainable resolution typically requires expert diplomatic frameworks that allow adversaries to preserve political legitimacy while reducing the underlying sources of conflict. Not novices, professional diplomates.
Such diplomacy is difficult, slow, and politically contentious. Yet without it, the current pressure strategies will evolve into a prolonged confrontation whose costs grow steadily a billion dollars a day.
The most dangerous strategic mistake is to assume that Iran will capitulate simply because it faces greater military and economic power.
Someone in the National Security Council needs to make this clear - they will not capitulate.
Civilizations that believe they are defending their historical identity endure far longer than outside observers predict.
Understanding that reality does not require accepting Iranian policies or abandoning legitimate security concerns. It requires recognizing that political endurance is often the decisive factor in long strategic contests.
The problem confronting policymakers today is therefore not merely Iran’s nuclear program or its regional influence.
The deeper challenge is understanding the adversary itself.
Until strategy accounts for the historical identity, political psychology, and strategic culture shaping Iranian decision-making, pressure alone will continue to extend the confrontation rather than resolve it.
Military power can shape events. Economic pressure can influence behavior. But history repeatedly demonstrates that endurance, identity, and legitimacy often determine how conflicts ultimately end.
The danger now is that what appears to be a regional confrontation is quietly assembling the architecture of a global conflict. The Strait of Hormuz is not simply a battlefield; it is the central artery of the global economy, through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil supply flows .
As the United States moves to choke off Iranian exports, it is not just applying pressure on Tehran—it is intervening directly in the energy lifelines of major powers, particularly China, which relies heavily on Gulf oil and has already signaled concern over access to these routes .
At the same time, Europe—already vulnerable to energy shocks—faces rising prices, inflation, and internal political strain as supply disruptions ripple outward . What begins as a coercive measure against Iran quickly becomes a systemic shock to the global order, forcing other nations to make strategic choices they may otherwise avoid.
China Acts
China will not watch its energy supply be strangled. European governments cannot indefinitely absorb economic damage without political consequence. In this environment, escalation is no longer a choice—it becomes a reaction.
On the first day of the U.S. embargo ordered by Donald Trump, at least one Chinese-linked, U.S.-sanctioned tanker (the Rich Starry) transited the Strait alongside other Iran-linked vessels, effectively testing the boundaries of the blockade rather than breaking it outright.
China has simultaneously issued explicit warnings that “the Strait of Hormuz is open to us,” signaling it does not recognize U.S. authority to restrict its energy lifelines, while condemning the blockade as destabilizing. The operational reality is more ambiguous: some vessels passed, others turned around under U.S. pressure, and at least one China-linked tanker reversed course after initially probing the route.
In effect, Beijing has not yet forced a confrontation, but it has initiated a controlled challenge to U.S. enforcement—probing rules of engagement, signaling resolve, and preserving optionality—while Washington attempts a Plan Anaconda-style squeeze on Iranian exports without closing the Strait entirely. The situation now sits in a narrow escalation band where the next Chinese convoy—especially if escorted—would transform today’s limited defiance into a direct great-power test at sea.
This blockade is rapidly becoming a game of chicken between President Trump, and the rest of the world.
History shows that world wars rarely begin with a deliberate decision to expand conflict.
They begin when localized confrontations intersect with global dependencies. The current trajectory carries that exact risk. A blockade that pressures Iran becomes a confrontation with China. Economic shock to Europe becomes political fragmentation within NATO. Retaliation in the Gulf spreads to shipping lanes, infrastructure, and alliance commitments.
Each step may appear rational in isolation, but together they create a chain reaction that no single actor fully controls.
60 Day Clock is Ticking Fast
As the 60-day clock under the War Powers Resolution approaches, congressional Republicans face a tightening strategic and political bind: they must choose between supporting a president from their own party and upholding Congress’s constitutional authority over war-making.
If they back continued military operations without formal authorization, they risk reinforcing an expansion of executive power that many have historically opposed; if they demand a vote or withdrawal, they expose internal fractures and potentially undercut a policy they may substantively support.
Complicating matters further, rising economic pressure from energy disruption and global market instability increases the cost of delay, while any move to assert congressional authority could trigger a high-stakes confrontation over separation of powers at precisely the moment when unity is most needed.
China and Russia weigh in: Stay Out! https://youtu.be/gwxXUIv6S5U