<img loading="lazy" class="size-full wp-image-3206516 alignleft" src="https://media.freemalaysiatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/6e7c24b8-phar-kim-beng-new-columnist.webp" alt="phar kim beng" width="300" height="400" />
The war that has erupted following the coordinated attacks by the US and Israel on Feb 28 is not merely a contest of military capabilities. It is, at its core, a test of national will. And if history is any guide, Iran’s nationalism is not easily extinguished.
During the recent rounds of negotiations in Geneva, mediated by Oman and closely watched by European states, the initial agenda appeared narrow and technical: ensure that Iran would not cross the nuclear threshold.
Tehran had signalled willingness to discuss enrichment levels, including uranium enriched up to 60% – dangerously close to weapons grade – as part of a broader compromise involving sanctions relief.
That alone represented a significant concession in principle. Yet as the talks proceeded, the list of demands expanded.
What began as an insistence that Iran must not develop nuclear weapons evolved into a far broader set of conditions. Washington pressed not only for stringent nuclear constraints, but also for the dismantling of Iran’s ballistic missile programme.
Shifting goalposts
The conversation then widened further to include the termination of Iran’s drone development capabilities. From Tehran’s perspective, this was no longer about nuclear restraint; it was about strategic emasculation.
The demands did not stop there. Iran was further urged to sever ties with regional partners and proxies such as the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza.
These relationships, controversial and destabilising as they may be from a Western and Israeli standpoint, are seen by Iran as integral components of its deterrence architecture. They are extensions of what Tehran calls its “forward defence” – a buffer system designed to prevent war from reaching Iranian soil.
In effect, the negotiating table gradually shifted from arms control to regime-level strategic rollback.
To Iranian leaders and much of the Iranian public, this appeared less like a search for compromise and more like an incremental attempt to strip the Islamic republic of every lever of influence it possesses in the Middle East.
An ancient civilisation
Such an approach fails to account for a crucial factor: Iran is not merely a state with a revolutionary ideology. It is a civilisation-state with millennia of history.
The Persian civilisational identity predates Islam, the modern nation-state system, and the very concept of Westphalian sovereignty. The memory of the empire – from the Achaemenids to the Safavids – lives on in the cultural consciousness.
That sense of historical continuity fuels a nationalism that transcends political factions.
When external powers escalate demands in a manner perceived as humiliating or coercive, the reaction is rarely capitulation. Instead, it often triggers what can be termed a “collective concord” – a closing of ranks across ideological and social divides.
In times of external threat, even critics of the regime may find themselves defending the nation. National dignity, once challenged, becomes a rallying cry. The coordinated strikes launched on Feb 28 are therefore likely to reinforce, not fracture, this collective resolve.
Pride and prejudice
History shows that societies under attack frequently respond with intensified unity. The Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s demonstrated how sustained bombardment and international isolation did not collapse Iran’s morale. On the contrary, the war hardened a generation and entrenched a siege mentality that still shapes strategic thinking in Tehran.
If Washington and Tel Aviv believe that expanding the war aims will accelerate Iranian capitulation, they may be misreading the psychology of nationalism.
Military superiority does not automatically translate into political victory. Breaking infrastructure is easier than breaking identity. Destroying facilities is simpler than dismantling pride.
Moreover, the broadening of demands – from nuclear non-proliferation to missiles, drones and regional alliances – risks transforming what might have been framed as a security dispute into an existential struggle.
A question of honour
When a conflict is framed as existential, the threshold for endurance rises dramatically. The calculus shifts from cost-benefit analysis to survival and honour.
This does not mean that Iran’s position is beyond critique. Its support for non-state armed groups has contributed to regional instability. Its missile and drone programmes unsettle neighbouring states. Its enrichment levels have alarmed the international community.
But diplomacy works best when objectives are sequenced and achievable, not when maximalist demands are layered one upon another.
The present trajectory suggests that the war will grow more severe in an attempt to erode the national will of the Iranian people. Economic pressure, targeted strikes, cyber operations and psychological warfare are all likely to intensify. Yet the paradox of coercion is that it can consolidate precisely what it aims to dismantle.
The harsher the external pressure, the more potent the internal nationalism.
Iran’s nationalism is not simply ideological fervour. It is rooted in language, literature, poetry and memory. From Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh to modern revolutionary narratives, the theme of resistance against invaders runs deep. That cultural substratum gives political leaders a reservoir of symbolic capital to draw upon during crises.
The end-game
Thus, the question facing the US and Israel is not only military: can they calibrate force without transforming this conflict into a generational struggle?
If the objective is to prevent nuclear proliferation, that goal may become harder to achieve under bombardment than at the negotiating table. War tends to incentivise deterrence, not restraint.
As the conflict unfolds, the world will witness whether escalating demands and military strikes can compel strategic reversal – or whether they will instead fortify a nationalism that proves inexhaustible.
The ultimate test is not merely of Iran’s missile capacity or enrichment levels. It is of the endurance of a people who perceive themselves as heirs to an ancient civilisation, unwilling to bend under duress.
In conflicts shaped by pride and identity, the battlefield extends beyond geography. It resides in the collective psyche. And in that domain, victory is far more elusive than any air campaign can guarantee.
&nbsp;
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.

MatchPoint Times

US-Israeli war against Iran is a test of its people’s nationalism

It will not merely test Iran’s military capability, but the endurance of a people who perceive themselves as heirs to an ancient civilisation.

Questions cloud Trump’s case for war against Iran

VFive Group gabung strategi korporat, prinsip Islam demi kelestarian