Yesterday I wrote about the extraordinary fanaticism displayed by Japan during the closing months of the Second World War, and today I’d like to explain why that history still matters.
It is easy—almost natural—to assume that our adversaries value life, prosperity, and self-preservation the way we do. But history demonstrates that’s not always the case. When an enemy embraces martyrdom, views compromise as weakness or believes death in pursuit of a divine cause is a virtue rather than a tragedy, the normal rules of deterrence do not apply.
By 1945, Japan had reached that point. Kamikaze attacks, civilian resistance plans, and the refusal of many soldiers to surrender reflected a culture that placed honor and sacrifice above survival. American planners estimated that an invasion of the Japanese home islands could cost hundreds of thousands of Allied casualties and millions of Japanese deaths. Whether one agrees with President Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb or not, few historians dispute that Japan presented an enemy willing to endure almost unimaginable losses rather than accept unconditional surrender.
That historical lesson is worth remembering as we confront Iran today. Iran is not Imperial Japan, nor are the circumstances identical. But the Islamic Republic is governed by leaders whose ideology and religious worldview place the survival of the regime—and their ideological and religious objectives—ahead of the welfare of their own people. For decades, Tehran has accepted crippling sanctions, economic hardship, diplomatic isolation, and the destruction of many of its proxy forces rather than abandon what it considers its revolutionary mission.
And that’s the uncomfortable reality that explains why Western assumptions repeatedly miss the point. It’s almost beyond comprehension why the regime does not choose prosperity and acceptance by the international community over perpetual confrontation. Nonetheless, the answer is straightforward: prosperity and international acceptance are not the regime’s highest priorities.
If Iran’s leadership genuinely believes it is carrying out a divine mission, then economic suffering, military setbacks, and even enormous casualties will be viewed as acceptable prices to pay. That does not mean diplomacy is impossible. What it does mean however is that we must be cautious about assuming Iran’s leaders weigh costs and benefits the same way we do.
History teaches that ideological fanaticism fundamentally alters an adversary’s decision-making. Ignoring that reality risks repeating one of the oldest mistakes in warfare: assuming the enemy thinks as we do.
The debate over President Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb will undoubtedly continue for generations. But one lesson from 1945 remains just as relevant today: before we can develop the right strategy, we must first understand the nature of the enemy we face.
Military power matters. Economic pressure matters. Diplomacy matters. But none of them can succeed if they are based on a false understanding of what drives the other side. The greatest mistake in war is not underestimating an enemy’s strength—it is misunderstanding his motivations.