Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs

• Divergent Axiological Foundations: The geopolitical friction between the U.S. and Iran is driven by fundamentally different cultural value systems that dictate their respective psychological motives.

• The Contractual Mandate: American strategy is anchored in the Enlightenment ideal of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”—a constitutional guarantee that prioritizes the avoidance of suffering and the preservation of individual well-being.

• The Redemptive Paradigm: In contrast, Iran is guided by a Shiite theological framework that sacralizes suffering and martyrdom as essential components of a moral victory within the context of Jihad.

• Psychological Asymmetry in Warfare: This ideological rift creates a profound psychological asymmetry, explaining why a diplomatic stalemate persists even in the wake of overwhelming American kinetic superiority.

• Practicality vs. Persistence: While the U.S. seeks “Win-Win” solutions through the application of military strength, Iran pursues strategic depth through a long-term lens that views the endurance of hardship as a form of sovereignty.

• The Resilience of Non-Capitulation: These conflicting values explain the failure of traditional negotiations; Iran views capitulation as a moral defeat, allowing them to absorb heavy losses that would be politically catastrophic in a Western context.

• Strategic recalibration: Given the Iranian capacity to tolerate military pain, American interests may be better served by adding non-kinetic strategies—such as economic isolation and leveraging internal domestic unrest—that challenge the regime’s stability without feeding its martyrdom narrative.

The Currency of Pain: American Pragmatism vs. Shiite Martyrdom

The global political landscape is often viewed through the lens of power, resources, and geography. However, a deeper rift exists in how different civilizations perceive the utility of suffering that comes as a result of military advantage and gains. If one accepts the premise of a fundamental value divide, the United States operates on a model where the avoidance of pain and the pursuit of happiness are protected by the state.¹ In contrast, the Shiite Muslim tradition often adheres to a theological model where suffering is not an inefficiency to be solved, but a sacred vehicle for moral witness and resistance.²

The American Engine: Optimization and the Pursuit of Happiness

The American ethos is predicated on the assumption that human suffering is a manageable variable, capable of being systematically eliminated through social and political engineering. By integrating the “pursuit of happiness” into the nation’s foundational canon, Thomas Jefferson institutionalized a societal expectation that equates existential stability and material comfort with inherent natural rights. Consequently, within this conceptual framework, socioeconomic or physical adversity is no longer interpreted as an inevitable facet of the human condition, but rather as a definitive failure of state infrastructure and policy.³

Consequently, the American approach to conflict is inherently transactional. Because “happiness” requires stability, the highest tool of American statecraft is the compromise. This is the “Win-Win” philosophy: the belief that through negotiation, parties can minimize losses and return to productive comfort. From the New Deal to modern “smart” warfare, the goal is to achieve objectives with the least possible friction.⁴

The Shiite Crucible: Sacrifice as Sovereignty

While the American model is a person who attains “success” in life, the Shiite hero is the Shahid —the martyr who achieves victory through personal sacrifice. This worldview is anchored in the Battle of Karbala⁵, where Imam Husayn’s suffering was not a defeat, but a supreme moral triumph.

This “Karbala Paradigm” transforms suffering from a burden into a badge of spiritual authority. In this framework, Mazloumiyat (being oppressed) confers a moral high ground that material prosperity cannot match. Where the West sees a population failing under sanctions, the Shiite tradition may see a “Sacred Resistance.” Refusing to compromise with an unjust power, even at the cost of hardship, is the ultimate expression of faith.⁶

Psychological Asymmetry: Divergent Realities

A critical barrier in what is described as “psychological asymmetry.” This concept explains how parties in a conflict operate within entirely different subjective realities, often manipulating facts and “truths” to serve a specific strategic or moral purpose.⁷

In the context of the American-Shiite divide, psychological asymmetry means that a single event—such as an economic sanction or a military strike—is processed through fundamentally different lenses. While the U.S. might view a sanction as a rational tool to incentivize capitulation and conflict resolution, the opposing side may view it as an ideological catalyst that provides “ideological strength” and fuels further resistance. This creates a “meta-conflict” where the two sides are not just fighting over resources, but are operating under different psychological assumptions about what constitutes a “win” or a “loss.”

Leadership Models: The Chief Executive vs. The Spiritual Guardian

These values also manifest in leadership definitions. In the American tradition, the leader is a Chief Executive judged on “delivery”—economic growth and safety. If a leader brings too much suffering or fails to deliver, they are viewed as having failed.

In the Shiite tradition, leadership is often embodied in the Spiritual Guardian. This leader’s legitimacy stems from protecting the faith’s integrity, not delivering material “happiness.” A leader is expected to lead the community through the test of suffering. This makes the Shiite leader less susceptible to pressure from hardship, as enduring that pain is framed as a collective spiritual duty.⁸

Media and Propaganda: Curating the Narrative of Pain

American media often centers on “Freedom and Prosperity.” Visual language focuses on aspiration and the restoration of order. Conflict is a temporary disruption, and the goal is a swift return to a state where citizens can pursue private interests.⁹

Conversely, Shiite-aligned media utilizes a visual language of “Eternal Struggle.” Imagery is saturated with the blood of martyrs and the defiant fist of the oppressed. Rather than promising comfort, these narratives lean into the “Holy Defense.” They suggest that a community’s strength is measured by its capacity to endure hardship. While American media sells the dream of a life without pain, Shiite media sells the glory of a life given meaning through pain.¹⁰

Conclusion: Different Measures of Victory

The tension between these worldviews is a clash of value currencies. The American system measures success by quality of life and the efficiency of solutions. The Shiite tradition measures victory by the depth of endurance.

In a world governed by the “Pursuit of Happiness,” suffering is an obstacle. In a world governed by glorifying Shahada, suffering is an altar. As noted earlier, the psychological asymmetry between these groups ensures that as long as they operate in different subjective realities, “rational” solutions from one side will continue to be viewed as moral failures by the other.

Any deadlock in the Iran-U.S. discussions serves as a stark illustration of the deep-seated value gap between American pragmatism and the Shiite tradition of martyrdom. This can be explained by using the lens of psychological asymmetry and the conflicting narratives of victory.

The Stalled Negotiations: A Failure of Transactional Diplomacy

The recent discussions in Islamabad are rooted in a fundamental clash between coercive American pragmatism and Shiite redemptive resistance.

The United States has presented a 15-point plan demanding “cast-iron” guarantees that Iran permanently forgo nuclear enrichment.¹¹ This proposal reflects a classic American perception that diplomacy is a mechanism for engineering capitulation; from Washington’s perspective, the naval blockade and sanctions have reached a tipping point where “surrender” is the only rational path to restoring domestic prosperity. To the American delegation, Iran’s refusal to comply is viewed as an irrational rejection of a “common sense” return to global order.

Conversely, Iran’s 10-point counter-proposal,¹² which insists on sovereign enrichment rights and war reparations, is anchored in a refusal to submit to what Tehran views as modern-day tyranny. For the Iranian leadership, the U.S. demand for “compliance” is interpreted as a demand for theological betrayal. Rooted in the Karbala Paradigm, the Iranian stance transforms material hardship from a burden into a “Sacred Resistance.”

Where the United States sees a population breaking under the weight of a blockade, the Iranian leadership see a community fulfilling its collective duty to endure a “test of suffering.” In this framework, capitulation to unjust demands would be a spiritual failure, while enduring the pain of sanctions remains the ultimate expression of faith and moral victory.

Psychological Asymmetry: Divergent Realities

Both sides operate in subjective realities that render the other’s actions unintelligible.

• The American Reality: The U.S. views its military superiority and the current blockade as absolute leverage. In this reality, Iran’s refusal to concede is seen as irrational defiance that can be broken with further pressure.

• The Iranian Reality: Tehran views the conflict as a “battle for national survival.” Through the lens of psychological asymmetry, American pressure does not incentivize compromise; it provides “ideological strength,” reinforcing the narrative of the Shahid (martyr) standing against a global oppressor.

Why Iranians Are Not Caving: The Moral Witness vs. The Chief Executive

The Iranian leadership’s willingness to resume the conflict, evidenced by recent military redeployments and the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz, stems from their role as Spiritual Guardians rather than Chief Executives.

• Endurance as Legitimacy: Unlike American leaders, who are judged on delivering prosperity, Iranian leaders derive legitimacy from their ability to lead the community through the “test” of suffering.

• Redefining Victory: Both sides are currently claiming victory. While President Trump asserts that Iran has been “totally defeated” due to infrastructure damage, Iranian officials frame the conflict as a victory because they have “forced the U.S. to negotiate” and have maintained their ideological redlines despite 40 days of intense warfare.

The Path Forward: Resuming the Battle

The psychological asymmetry between the parties ensures that while the U.S. applies a full naval blockade or increases military and economic pressure to force a settlement, Iran views those actions as a further justification for its “Sacred Resistance.”

Crucially, the U.S. must recognize that without a total occupation and control of Iran these theological ideals preclude the possibility of a “surrender” in the conventional, formal sense—such as the total capitulations of Germany or Japan in World War II which took place only after years of war, and when occupation and control were clearly at hand. In those precedents, surrender was a pragmatic choice to ensure national survival. In the Shiite tradition, however, formal submission to an “unjust power” is viewed as a spiritual annihilation far more catastrophic than physical or economic ruin.

Iran will never be able to “surrender” in the conventional sense and maintain consistent Shiite values; to do so would be to abandon the core tenet of the Karbala Paradigm, which commands the faithful to witness for justice regardless of the material cost. For the United States to move forward and effectively define victory, it must move away from the expectation of a declaration or admission of capitulation.

This irreconcilable divide inevitably shifts the strategic focus away from a final deal and creates a choice between an overwhelming and decisive military victory that leads to a clear collapse of the ability of the Iranian regime to govern or the creation of a state of “managed conflict.” In this scenario, Iran would seek to calibrate the level of violence and economic pressure to avoid total collapse while maintaining their respective ideological “red line.” For Washington, victory may no longer be defined by a visible and unconditional surrender as originally demanded by President Trump,¹³ but by a containment strategy that accepts Iranian “resistance” as a permanent, if painful, feature of the regional landscape while applying economic pressure instead of or in addition to kinetic means to keep the regime weak and foment domestic opposition that could possibly lead to some sort of regime change over time.

* * *

Notes