Post-World War II, the US has repeatedly failed to translate its military superiority into lasting political victories in the "nation-building" wars it has so far waged. Relatively smaller operations like Kosovo or, more recently, Venezuela aside, most of its other 'interventions' have failed. The Korean War was a stalemate, and Vietnam a humiliating retreat. The prevailing situation in the Gulf reminds one of the premature claims of victory after the First Gulf War. Saddam Hussein may have been ousted from power, but the current dispensation in Baghdad is equally sectarian (read pro-Iran). Libya post-Gaddafi is hardly a nation-state, much like the chaos in Yemen or Somalia. The ouster of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has led to a former al-Qaeda leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa, taking the reins. The longest American war, which went on for over two decades and was also the most expensive one ($2 trillion), resulted in a hasty abandonment, only to hand Afghanistan back to the Taliban.
Can Iran Be Subdued?
This is hardly a reassuring list as Donald Trump lines up American firepower yet again, this time in the Persian Gulf. US forces led by the aircraft carrier strike groups USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald Ford are assuming offensive postures against Iran in a tense battle of who blinks first. Trump's threat of "really bad things" happening is not entirely unfathomable, given that the US and Israeli forces did jointly hit three Iranian nuclear facilities in Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow in June 2025. So, to that extent, there is a psychological precedent to an attack on Iran, in recent times. While the June 2025 strikes had the relative safety of distance, the current sabre-rattling entails the threat of a full-blown "war".
But is it even plausible? Can Iran be coerced into kowtowing to Trump's diktats? Can it be defeated and subjected to a regime change? Can Iran end any differently from the outcomes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Syria? Indeed, Iran will be different from all previous US endeavours. And it's a far more complex and difficult undertaking.
The reasons are twofold.
Iran Is The 'Nucleus' Of The Islamic World
Firstly, attacking Iran will lead to repercussions way beyond Iran itself. Secondly, its history and culture are proof that there is a unique, faith-based behavioural aspect that may lead to a response that goes way beyond the ordinary.
Iran is, above all, a sectarian and theological "idea", which transcends the limited definitions of a nation-state. While Shia theology is not exclusive to one country, with early communities centred around Medina, Kufa, Baghdad and later in Najaf, Karbala et al, post the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran became the emotional, spiritual, and political sanctum sanctorum for the 300-million-plus Shias spread across the world, including 25 million in India. The Constitutional foundation and the 'imagined purpose' of Iran is predicated on Wilayat al-Faqih, meaning the "Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist". Under the 'Twelver Shi'ism' framework, which adheres to the belief in twelve divinely ordained leaders known as Imams, the Supreme Leader of Iran, currently Ali Khamenei, becomes the 'Wali al-Faqih', affording him an outsized relevance across the world. The Theory of Umm al-Qura ("Mother of Cities"), developed by Iranian thinker Mohammad Javad Larijani, also makes Iran central to the Islamic World.
This has led to Iran inspiring what is often called the "Axis of Resistance", which manifests in powerful militias such as Hezbollah (Lebanon), Houthis (Yemen), Popular Mobilization Forces (Iraq), Liwa Abu al-Fadhal al-Abbas (Syria), Fatemiyoun Brigade (Afghanistan), and even the Pakistani Zainabiyoun Brigade. Thus, any American attack on Iran's sovereignty could wound sensibilities way beyond the territorial borders of Iran and elicit global reactions.
The 'Appeal' Of Martyrdom
Then there is a far more deadly behavioural guarantee in attacking Iran, as it tends to readily invoke the Shi'i concept of martyrdom (Shahada), which is considered a deeply theological and spiritual duty that is to be upheld against any perceived enemy. Amongst the most revered statements attributed to Hussein ibn Ali at the Battle of Karbala is, "Hayhat minna al-dhilla", that is, "Death with dignity is better than life under oppression". The other popular rouse is Kullu yawmin ʿAshuraʾ, wa kullu arḍin Karbala, that is, "martyrdom and the struggle against injustice is ongoing and universal". Such underpinnings normalise and valorise martyrdom in battle as a noble and conscious act. Such a fiery belief system can wreak havoc on any intruder in asymmetric warfare, as would be inevitable if the Americans attempt to put boots on the ground.
The decidedly superior Iraqi forces in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s faced the consequences of such Shi'i ideological mobilisation. The Iranians endured significantly higher fatalities owing to brazen tactics such as human wave assaults. In contrast, there was no comparable religious framing of "martyrdom" or "sacrifice" in Saddam's predominantly non-Shia military, then. Therefore, despite early Iraqi gains, Iran was able to push back and retrieve its lost territory, and even emerge strategically better-positioned. The human cost to the Iranians notwithstanding, the efficacy of their fighting spirit, infused with faith itself, was unmistakable - and decisive.
A War-Ready Force
Lastly, unlike many militaries in the Arab Sheikdoms, the Iranian military is battle-hardened. Over the years, it has committed itself to various regional theatres, such as the Iraqi-Syrian swathes. It also has a modicum of professionalism and hardware wherewithal, which makes it far more formidable than the ragtag Taliban militia. Point to note: even that ragtag militia ended up wearing out the Americans in Afghanistan.
America must understand that simply the unpopularity of the current Ayatollah regime cannot guarantee popular support for a US invasion of Iran. Such an either-or choice between an Ayatollah rule and an American-propped regime would be a non-starter in a 6,000-year-old civilisation. Also, there is no singular face of opposition - certainly not the Shah progeny in exile in the US - that the Americans can bet on to replace the Ayatollah.
Therefore, any attempts by Trump to forcibly "hold" Iranian land are likely to be met with an unprecedented fury, perhaps of the kind that America has never faced before. If even the Vietnamese or Afghans wore out the Americans, can Trump really deal with what Iran has to offer?
Attacking Iran would surely lead to what Trump calls "really bad things". Only, they might not be just for Iran.
(Lt. Gen. Bhopinder Singh is the former Lieutenant Governor of The Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Pondicherry and an Indian Army officer who has been awarded the PVSM.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
