By Seyed Hossein Mousavian
Interview with Hankookilbo newspaper, South Korea, 2026.03.25
Despite the challenges of wartime conditions, Iran’s decision-making system remains cohesive, operational, and has adapted to the realities of war. Despite heavy losses among senior leadership and intense airstrikes, the country’s top political and military structures remain intact, with key institutions—including the presidency, parliament, and the IRGC—continuing to coordinate and respond effectively. Iran’s defensive doctrine, known as “mosaic defense,” was specifically designed for such circumstances: even if top leadership or central command is struck, regional and local units retain the authority and capability to act independently. As a result, both cohesion and operational intensity appear to have been reinforced during the conflict.
The theory that Iran would collapse under military attack represents a major strategic miscalculation by the United States. Iran’s leadership views the U.S.–Israel war as an existential threat. The assumption that external pressure alone could trigger internal collapse is deeply flawed. Iran is not Venezuela or Syria; it possesses a long history and civilization, a strong national identity, established institutions, and significant social cohesion that make capitulation unlikely. With the onset of military confrontation, public attention has shifted from domestic grievances to national defense, producing a deeply rooted pattern of unity in response to what is perceived as foreign aggression—an essential reality policymakers must take into account.
Trust in the United States has sharply declined in Tehran. Trump’s shift—from threatening attacks on Iranian power facilities to announcing a five-day delay and signaling openness to a deal—appears largely tactical. The war began abruptly in the midst of nuclear negotiations that had made meaningful progress, further eroding confidence. For the five-day pause to yield substantive results, significant obstacles must be overcome. President Trump would need to demonstrate greater consistency and credibility in both rhetoric and policy, reduce contradictions, and take concrete steps to rebuild at least minimal trust.
From Tehran’s perspective, the underlying objectives of its adversaries go beyond the nuclear issue. Iranian leaders believe these goals include advancing a “Greater Israel” strategy through the weakening or fragmentation of Iran, alongside regime change and U.S. control over Iran’s oil and strategic resources. Under sustained military pressure aimed at forcing capitulation, Iran is likely to become more radicalized, increasing the risk of escalation into a broader and potentially uncontrollable regional war. While Iran has restricted maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, it has so far refrained from fully closing it, preserving this option as a tool of pressure pending credible security guarantees.
https://www.hankookilbo.com/news/article/A2026032509420004366?dtypecode=pancode_main