\n
![](\"https:\/\/en.hamsonews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/5910734.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
Before examining the causes and consequences of decision\u2011making in the Iran\u2013U.S. standoff, a fundamental question must first be asked: are decision\u2011makers\u2019 interpretations and analyses of reality themselves correct?<\/p>\n
This is fundamentally an operational question. In his seminal work \u2018Perception and Misperception in International Politics\u2019, Robert Jervis reminds us of the need to distinguish between the \u201cpsychological environment\u201d \u2013 the world as decision\u2011makers perceive it \u2013 and the \u201coperational environment,\u201d in which policies are actually carried out. If policies and decisions are indeed mediated by the goals and interpretations of statesmen, then any serious analysis of why those decisions are made is impossible without examining the perceptual processes that shape them.<\/p>\n
One may describe events without probing the mindset of the actors involved, but as long as we seek answers to \u201cwhy\u201d questions, the analysis of decision\u2011making becomes indispensable. The central problem confronting the United States in its standoff with the Islamic Republic of Iran lies precisely in this realm: Washington is caught in a vicious cycle of structural misperceptions about Iran. These misperceptions\u2014which Jervis attributes to decision\u2011makers\u2019 tendency to cling to pre\u2011existing mental images and to discount contradictory information\u2014have obstructed the development of an accurate and realistic understanding of the other side. The outcome is a condition of chronic hesitation and strategic confusion in Washington, in which policymakers are uncertain which version of reality they are confronting and, as a result, are unable to formulate a coherent and effective strategy.<\/p>\n
This misperception is clearly reflected in American analyses of three critical areas. The first concerns assessments of Iran\u2019s defensive and deterrent capabilities. Iran\u2019s performance in the recent 12\u2011day war\u2014its demonstration of drone and missile capacities, as well as its ability to reorganize militarily despite the assassination of senior commanders\u2014has challenged earlier American perceptual models that portrayed Iran as a weak, isolated actor on the verge of collapse. Yet these new objective realities appear not to have been fully absorbed into the cognitive framework of U.S. policymakers, and the image of a \u201cweak Iran\u201d continues to cast a long shadow over their strategic calculations.<\/p>\n
Second, the United States consistently misreads Iran\u2019s internal dynamics. Washington has long operated on the assumption that the majority of Iranian society opposes the Islamic Republic and that, in moments of acute crisis, the country will descend into insurrection and internal collapse. As Jervis cautions, decision\u2011makers tend to exaggerate information that confirms their pre\u2011existing beliefs. Accordingly, reports of economic hardship are routinely interpreted as evidence of an imminent drive toward government overthrow, while the complexities of Iranian society, its capacity for national cohesion in the face of external threats, and the system\u2019s popular foundations are largely disregarded. This cognitive error\u2014rooted in media narratives and in reporting from diplomatic missions\u2014rests on flawed political analyses and misleading historical analogies, and has produced dangerously distorted strategic calculations.<\/p>\n
Third, the external role of Israel as an influential actor both reinforces and channels these misperceptions. Through sustained diplomatic and intelligence efforts, Israel promotes a narrow narrative of Iran as nothing more than a \u201cdestabilizing existential threat.\u201d This framing constrains Washington\u2019s ability to define its own independent and genuine national interests vis\u2011\u00e0\u2011vis Iran. As a stakeholder seeking to align America\u2019s cognitive map with its own strategic priorities, Israel further obscures the perceptual landscape, preventing U.S. policymakers from developing a clear and balanced understanding of Iran\u2019s realities.<\/p>\n
In this context, the negotiations currently underway between Iran and the United States, mediated by Oman, offer a concrete illustration of this perceptual dilemma. As Jervis emphasizes, the transmission and reception of signals under crisis conditions are always prone to misinterpretation: the sender may fail to communicate clearly, while the receiver interprets the signal through the lens of prior assumptions. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has spoken of President Trump\u2019s readiness to meet with any counterpart, including the Leader of Iran. At the same time, however, Trump\u2014invoking the attacks of last June\u2014has warned that \u201ceither we reach an agreement, or we will do something very tough, like last time,\u201d while also describing \u201cregime change\u201d in Iran as the \u201cbest possible outcome.\u201d These dual signals\u2014professed openness to diplomacy on the one hand, and threats coupled with an explicit endorsement of destabilization on the other\u2014underscore that Washington still lacks a coherent understanding of both its objectives and its interlocutor.<\/p>\n
The outcome of this process is a condition of relative paralysis in decision\u2011making. The United States oscillates between the poles of \u201cmaximum pressure\u201d and \u201cnegotiation\u201d precisely because it lacks a clear understanding of the nature, capabilities, and objectives of the other side. As Jervis argues, escaping this spiral of failure requires a fundamental correction of perception. Above all, Washington must abandon its entrenched mental model of Iran\u2014a composite of aspirations, manufactured fears, and incomplete analyses\u2014and reconstruct it on the basis of objective realities: Iran\u2019s national power, its structural stability, its defensive capabilities, and the rational calculations of its leadership. Only by correcting this flawed cognitive map can the United States develop a sustainable, predictable, and effective strategy toward Iran. So long as misperception persists, every American action\u2014whether coercive or conciliatory\u2014will rest on a distorted image of reality and will ultimately be doomed to failure.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n