It is amazing how things that are supposed to be easy to understand and fathom can become rocket science to those who should ordinarily understand them.
The United States of America has for decades positioned itself as a global champion of free speech, democracy and human rights. Yet, to many critics around the world, there remains a glaring contradiction between these ideals and America’s military interventions and foreign policy decisions.
For people in places such as Gaza and Lebanon, American statements on human rights and freedom are viewed through the lens of Washington’s support for allies involved in conflicts that have caused widespread destruction and loss of life. To them, the question is whether a nation can claim the moral authority to defend human rights while being associated with wars and policies that have devastated communities.
The United States often appears to underestimate one reality: there are nations and peoples who do not respond to pressure by surrendering their independence or accepting instructions from abroad.
The logic behind military power seems to be that overwhelming force can compel nations to change direction. Bombings, sanctions and military campaigns are sometimes presented as tools to achieve political outcomes. But history has repeatedly shown that destroying infrastructure or weakening governments does not always produce submission. In many cases, it strengthens national resistance and deepens resentment.
The United States frequently decides which nations are democratic enough, which governments require intervention and which populations need to be “saved”. After making such judgments, Washington often assumes the responsibility of reshaping those countries. The challenge is that there are communities around the world that have suffered for years without receiving the same urgency or attention.
The people of Gaza, for instance, have endured decades of conflict and humanitarian suffering, yet many critics argue that American foreign policy has not treated their plight with the same urgency applied to other geopolitical interests.
Iran presents another challenge to this worldview. Anyone familiar with Iranian history understands that it represents one of the world’s oldest civilizations, with thousands of years of cultural, scientific and intellectual achievement. Iran has experienced invasions, wars and prolonged international pressure, yet it has continued to maintain its national identity and institutions.
A nation that survives years of sanctions develops a different kind of resilience. When ordinary life continues despite economic restrictions, it demonstrates a level of endurance that countries unfamiliar with such pressure may struggle to understand.
The idea that sanctions can weaken a population while simultaneously creating goodwill toward the country imposing them appears difficult for many Iranians to accept. Why would a nation subjected to economic restrictions, diplomatic isolation and military threats naturally develop affection for the power behind those measures?
This raises a broader question about perceptions of American influence: does Washington sometimes assume that access to the United States, its markets or its institutions automatically gives it unmatched leverage over other societies?
For many Iranians, the answer appears to be no.
Military action, sanctions and political pressure have not produced the level of compliance that some policymakers may have expected. Instead, many Iranians have viewed such actions as attacks on their sovereignty and have rallied around national identity and independence.
The belief that external powers can determine who leads another nation or dictate the political choices of its people has long been a source of tension in international relations. The question many Iranians ask is simple: why should another country, regardless of its power, have a decisive voice in determining Iran’s future?
The United States may see its actions as efforts to promote security or change political systems it opposes. But many Iranians see them as attempts to control their destiny.
What Washington may be confronting in Iran is not simply a government or a political leadership. It is a deeply rooted national identity shaped by centuries of history, conflict and survival.
The lesson of history is that military strength can destroy buildings, weaken economies and remove leaders, but it cannot easily erase the determination of a people who believe they are fighting for their independence.
The struggle between the United States and Iran is therefore not only a contest of weapons and political strategies. It is also a battle of perceptions, identity and national will. And unless America understands that reality, it may continue to underestimate the very force it seeks to overcome: the spirit of the Iranian people.
