Remember my post asking why Iran didn't go for the win against Israel, only to let their enemy recover and fight another day? This Larry Johnson piece offers a fascinating theological angle I hadn't considered.
The author's convert friend argues that Iran's restraint isn't political calculation but religious obligation. Islamic jurisprudence apparently creates binding constraints: no preemptive strikes, immediate cessation when enemies stop fighting, and strict civilian protection. As the essay explains, "Everything that the Iranians do, or don't do, has a definite precedent in Islamic history." The Quran states: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not exceed the limits; Surely Allah does not like those who exceed the limits."
But here's the problem I keep coming back to: fighting with honor against dishonorable opponents is a recipe for disaster. The essay notes that "Iranian Army has to 'play fair', whereas its opponents are known for cheating!" This creates an asymmetric battlefield where one side follows rules while the other doesn't.
The Islamic framework requires Iran to stop fighting when enemies cease hostilities. Yet Israel has repeatedly used ceasefires to rearm and reposition. Iran's religious obligation to show mercy becomes Israel's tactical advantage. The convert writes about how Muslims "could NEVER deny anyone water, or stop their water flow, no matter if they are staunch enemies," referencing the three-day denial of water to Imam Husayn. Meanwhile, Israel cuts water to Gaza without religious constraint.
Iran's Supreme Leader must ensure military actions don't "contradict, or undermine, in any way shape or form, the Islamic morals and codes of ethics." This creates what the author calls institutional weakness - though he frames it as honor. The Iranian military "is diligent in their trying to limit casualties, focusing on military, and infrastructure targets," while facing opponents who deliberately target civilians.
The essay draws a chilling parallel between Israeli treatment of Palestinians and American treatment of Native Americans: "The Israelis received a modest parcel of land in Palestine, and ultimately took over the entire state and relocated the Palestinians to a small enclosed area, i.e. Gaza. Similarly, the colonials acquired a modest parcel of land from the Native Americans, and ultimately took over the entire state, and relocated the Indians to a small enclosed area, i.e. Reservations."
This theological explanation illuminates a strategic trap. Iran's religious constraints create predictable patterns that enemies exploit. When one combatant follows rules requiring proportionality and civilian protection while the other doesn't, the "honorable" fighter becomes systematically disadvantaged. The essay mentions how mainstream media views "honorable traits as weakness, and higher morals and ethics as stupidity."
Perhaps Iran's real strategic challenge isn't military capability but how to maintain religious legitimacy while facing opponents who recognize no such constraints. Fighting honorably against dishonorable enemies may satisfy divine law, but it invites escalating aggression from those who see restraint as weakness rather than principle.
Remember my post asking why Iran didn't go for the win against Israel, only to let their enemy recover and fight another day? This Larry Johnson piece offers a fascinating theological angle I hadn't considered.
Source: https://sonar21.com/how-islam-is-governing-irans-response-to-israel-and-the-united-states/
The author's convert friend argues that Iran's restraint isn't political calculation but religious obligation. Islamic jurisprudence apparently creates binding constraints: no preemptive strikes, immediate cessation when enemies stop fighting, and strict civilian protection. As the essay explains, "Everything that the Iranians do, or don't do, has a definite precedent in Islamic history." The Quran states: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not exceed the limits; Surely Allah does not like those who exceed the limits."
But here's the problem I keep coming back to: fighting with honor against dishonorable opponents is a recipe for disaster. The essay notes that "Iranian Army has to 'play fair', whereas its opponents are known for cheating!" This creates an asymmetric battlefield where one side follows rules while the other doesn't.
The Islamic framework requires Iran to stop fighting when enemies cease hostilities. Yet Israel has repeatedly used ceasefires to rearm and reposition. Iran's religious obligation to show mercy becomes Israel's tactical advantage. The convert writes about how Muslims "could NEVER deny anyone water, or stop their water flow, no matter if they are staunch enemies," referencing the three-day denial of water to Imam Husayn. Meanwhile, Israel cuts water to Gaza without religious constraint.
Iran's Supreme Leader must ensure military actions don't "contradict, or undermine, in any way shape or form, the Islamic morals and codes of ethics." This creates what the author calls institutional weakness - though he frames it as honor. The Iranian military "is diligent in their trying to limit casualties, focusing on military, and infrastructure targets," while facing opponents who deliberately target civilians.
The essay draws a chilling parallel between Israeli treatment of Palestinians and American treatment of Native Americans: "The Israelis received a modest parcel of land in Palestine, and ultimately took over the entire state and relocated the Palestinians to a small enclosed area, i.e. Gaza. Similarly, the colonials acquired a modest parcel of land from the Native Americans, and ultimately took over the entire state, and relocated the Indians to a small enclosed area, i.e. Reservations."
This theological explanation illuminates a strategic trap. Iran's religious constraints create predictable patterns that enemies exploit. When one combatant follows rules requiring proportionality and civilian protection while the other doesn't, the "honorable" fighter becomes systematically disadvantaged. The essay mentions how mainstream media views "honorable traits as weakness, and higher morals and ethics as stupidity."
Perhaps Iran's real strategic challenge isn't military capability but how to maintain religious legitimacy while facing opponents who recognize no such constraints. Fighting honorably against dishonorable enemies may satisfy divine law, but it invites escalating aggression from those who see restraint as weakness rather than principle.