Analysis and Commentary

Victory in War or Narrative; Which One Determines Iran's Fate?

Is victory on the battlefield more important or the narrative of it? In the battle between the United States and the Islamic Republic, where does the truth lie?

Victory in War or Narrative; Which One Determines Iran's Fate? t.me
Victory in War or Narrative; Which One Determines Iran's Fate?

📝Note from the Editor of Fidus: Darius Memar

The Final Battle of the United States with the Islamic Republic

Is victory in war more important than victory in narrative?

At first glance, answering the question of which side is winning in the war between the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic does not seem very complicated. Within the framework of classic military equations, the scales clearly tip in favor of Washington and its allies. The United States is the largest military power in the world, and the gap in its military capabilities compared to many other actors is significant; from aircraft carriers and air superiority to a vast network of military bases surrounding Iran and access to the most advanced military technologies.

However, as Carl von Clausewitz reminds us in his theory of war, victory on the battlefield does not necessarily mean victory in the realm of politics. War is the continuation of politics by other means, and its ultimate outcome is determined in the realm of meaning, legitimacy, and narrative, not merely in the military arena.

Identity War and Contradictory Narratives

From this perspective, some supporters of the Islamic Republic may interpret this war not merely as a geopolitical conflict but as an identity and religious battle. In such a framework, the death of the 87-year-old leader of the Islamic Republic could quickly transform into a mythical narrative; a narrative in which Ali Khamenei is redefined not as a defeated leader but as a symbol of "resistance against great powers."

In contrast, for a large segment of Iranian society, his death is seen as the end of the political life of a leader whom many hold responsible for widespread repression and violence against citizens.

Here, Hannah Arendt's analysis also becomes significant. She distinguishes between "power" and "violence" and emphasizes that acts of violence such as military attacks or revolutions can weaken governments but cannot alone create new political legitimacy. From this perspective, even if one side wins on the battlefield, the real battle may continue in the realm of emerging narratives and legitimacy.

For this reason, sustainable victory in the struggle against tyranny depends more than anything on the continuity of social developments and civil struggle; a path that may be longer but ultimately deeper and more enduring than mere victory on the battlefield.

🔻 More details and video file on the Fidus channel:

📸 Fidus Instagram – Reports and special files