Mohamed Darwish
It is striking that the strategies of Chinese leader Sun Tzu in his book The Art of War, which were placed more than 2,500 years ago, are still applied to this day. This was clearly evident in the twelve days war, which broke out on June 13, 2025, with Israeli air strikes targeting Iranian military leaders and military sites, followed by an accurate American blow against uranium enrichment facilities, known as (midnight hammer).
In the midst of this escalation, one of the famous Son Tzu’s advice, which says, “The noose is not very narrowed on the desperate enemy.” The besieged opponent without a way out becomes more fierce and deadly, while opening an outlet for him may lead to his withdrawal or surrender.
The American administration, led by Trump, seemed completely aware of this principle, as the strike was accompanied by public messages about preparing to return to negotiations and reach a permanent peace, in addition to Trump’s assurances of the absence of intention to bring down the regime. All of them were reassurances of the Iranians that the field is available for dialogue so that they would not lose their right.
We witnessed that the Iranian response came as a “theatrical”, and included the launch of missiles on the base of “many”, which did not go to targets, in what appeared to be an undeclared coordination to save the face of the Iranian regime in front of its fans at home. Here, we find Sun Tzu’s other advice present, in which he says: “When you besiege an army, leave him an outlet.” Smart power does not humiliate its opponent, because humiliation sows the seeds of revenge. This “symbolic director” has already succeeded in giving the Iranian regime an opportunity to declare “victory”, albeit fake and preserving face, as well as in avoiding a revenge war that goes on and is complicated.
On the other hand, a symposium organized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington saw that the American strike succeeded in neutralizing Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but it did not open a way for negotiations, in light of each party’s adherence to its position, and Israel’s opposition to any new dialogue.
In conclusion, Iran now appears in its weakest, as it suffers from an exhausted economy, a dilapidated army, the dying militias and absent allies (Russia and China). But the historical experience confirms that the Iranian regime, despite strikes and crises, is able to recover, as it came out of its long war with Iraq, exhausted and thickened by wounds, then returned a pivotal player in the region within a short years.
The lesson here is that as long as the last blow is not a judge, the underestimation of Tehran becomes a naive belief in its weakness, the system in it remains constant and continuous and the extremist ideology is present and inherent, which means that its ambitions in exporting the revolution and its expansion desires exist, therefore it seemed in a state of decline now, it may be merely a period and return to its previous era.
