Victory in Iran must encompass military, ideological wins

When War Is No Longer a Means but the End

For more than two centuries, military strategy has rested on one simple assumption.

As Carl Philipp Gottlieb von Clausewitz argued, war is the continuation of politics by other means. States wage war to achieve political objectives, and military victory comes when the enemy concludes those objectives can no longer be attained.

Iran presents something fundamentally different.

The Islamic Republic has built an entire system in which the continuation of conflict has itself become a political objective.

The regime derives legitimacy not from prosperity or democratic consent but from permanent confrontation with Israel, the United States, and the West. Conflict is no longer simply an instrument of policy. It has become the policy.

Recognizing this requires a fundamental rethinking of both military doctrine and political strategy.

Military Success Is No Longer Enough

Military operations against Iran's nuclear facilities, missile infrastructure and Revolutionary Guard leadership remain necessary. But they do not answer the fundamental strategic question: what does victory mean against a regime whose political survival depends upon the continuation of conflict?

Traditional military doctrine seeks to persuade an adversary to abandon its political objectives. That logic weakens when confrontation itself is one of those objectives.

Iran has spent decades constructing a system capable of absorbing military punishment while regenerating its capacity for disruption through missiles, terrorism, proxy organizations and regional instability.

Military success, therefore, can no longer be measured solely by destroyed installations or eliminated commanders.

Winning the Political Battlefield

Iran’s greatest strategic achievement may not be military but psychological.

Each missile that penetrates sophisticated Israeli or American defenses creates an image far more powerful than its battlefield effect.

To millions watching television or social media, Iran increasingly appears as David confronting Goliath. The military damage may be limited, but the political symbolism generates sympathy for the apparent underdog.

That sympathy comes at a price.

It obscures the character of a regime responsible for systematic repression, hostage-taking, terrorism, proxy warfare and decades of regional destabilization.

Tactical military resilience should not become moral legitimacy.

The democratic world therefore needs a coordinated political and communications strategy alongside its military one.

Governments, international organizations, traditional media and social media should consistently return the debate to the nature of the regime itself.

No one admires organized crime because it occasionally outwits the police.

Likewise, a regime that sponsors terrorism and closest traffic to global shipping should not acquire legitimacy simply because it succeeds in prolonging conflict.

This effort should form part of a broader democratic commitment to defend victims of authoritarian repression everywhere — not only in Iran, but also Muslim minorities persecuted in China’s Xinjiang region and in parts of Russia, and others whose fundamental rights are denied.

By applying the same principles consistently, democracies strengthen both their credibility and their moral authority.

A Political Alternative

Military pressure must be accompanied by a credible political alternative.

The United States, together with Europe and democratic partners in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, should begin building international recognition for a representative Iranian transitional authority.

Such a government should commit itself to abandoning nuclear weapons, ending support for terrorism and proxy militias, respecting the sovereignty of neighboring states, guaranteeing freedom of navigation and establishing constitutional democracy.

In return, the democratic world should offer a conditional Marshall Plan for reconstruction and economic reintegration, tied to verifiable commitments on denuclearization, human rights and regional peace.

Rethinking Victory

Iran's challenge is not simply military; it is conceptual.

When war becomes the objective rather than the instrument, victory requires more than superior firepower.

It requires defeating not only military capabilities but also the political and psychological narratives that sustain perpetual conflict.

Only by combining military strength, a credible democratic alternative and a coordinated international campaign for legitimacy can democracies hope to end — not merely manage — the cycle of permanent war.

Mark L. Cohen practices law and was counsel at White & Case starting in 2001, after serving as international lawyer and senior legal consultant for the French aluminum producer Pechiney. Cohen was a senior consultant at a Ford Foundation commission, an adviser to the PBS television program "The Advocates," and assistant attorney general in Massachusetts. He teaches U.S. history at the business school in Lille l'EDHEC. Read more Mark L. Cohen Insider articles — Click Here Now.