by Fahri Şahin*
Every society possesses a shared consciousness and a set of sacred values that emerge most clearly in times of crisis. Although this collective consciousness may appear invisible beneath the rational discourse of the modern age, it continues to exist powerfully within the subconscious of societies. Every community that has successfully become a nation possesses its own distinctive “spirit.”
This spirit shapes both the conscious and unconscious dimensions of the nation. The most fundamental force sustaining nations is precisely this spirit. Nations live for their spirit; as long as that spirit survives, they survive as well. During periods of crisis, this spirit often emerges from where it has been hidden and begins to guide the nation.
The concept of the “National Spirit” points, on the one hand, to Émile Durkheim’s theory of “collective consciousness,” which established sociology as an independent discipline, and on the other hand, to Carl Gustav Jung’s concept of the “collective unconscious.” If we take the basic assumptions of modern psychology and sociology seriously, understanding a nation requires understanding its spirit and the metaphysical principles upon which that spirit rests.
Our purpose here is not to examine socio-psychological theories in detail. Rather, it is to discuss the underlying dynamics of the months-long Iran–U.S./Israel confrontation from this metaphysical and historical perspective and to anticipate its likely trajectory. Metaphysical principles transcend time; when properly identified, they allow us to interpret the course of events more clearly.
From the Trench to Hormuz: A Persistent Defensive Doctrine
During the Battle of the Trench, when the Meccan pagans besieged Medina during the Prophet Muhammad’s era, the city faced the danger of annihilation. At this critical moment, Salman al-Farsi (a Persian companion of the Prophet) proposed the digging of a trench. This proposal carried two essential meanings: first, transforming geography into a defensive weapon; and second, exercising patience, waiting, and wearing down the enemy.
Salman’s suggestion was no coincidence. The classical defensive system employed by the Sasanian Empire against Rome—and later, through a similar logic, against the Ottoman Empire—consisted of three principal stages:
1. Retreat and Minimize Damage: Withdraw as much as possible in the face of attack and temporarily abandon parts of the territory.
2. Patience and Opportunity-Seeking: Adapt to new conditions while waiting for opportunities created by the enemy’s own internal dynamics.
3. Driving the Enemy into Chaos: Apply pressure from both outside and within, making the attack increasingly costly and ultimately meaningless for the adversary.
Iran’s millennia-old national spirit can be summarized through this three-stage doctrine. The same spirit that once proposed digging a trench before Medina now transforms the Strait of Hormuz into a strategic weapon.
The Current Crisis and the Three Stages
Today, Iran appears to be implementing this historical doctrine to a considerable extent:
Stage One (Retreat): Iran has largely abandoned its forward positions in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain, and Yemen, returning to its geographical core. This resembles earlier periods when it temporarily relinquished territories such as Anatolia, Syria, and Jerusalem in the face of Rome or the Ottoman Empire.
Stage Two (Patience and Waiting): Iranian society has entered a mode of enduring hardship while minimizing losses. Just as it once waited for the internal contradictions of Rome and the Ottoman Empire to emerge, it is now watching for moments when the domestic political dynamics of the United States and Israel—elections, public pressure, or economic costs—may turn in its favor.
Stage Three (Chaos and Pressure): Iran seeks to expand regional and global instability in order to generate pressure on the United States through Arab states, Europe, China, Russia, and American public opinion. Historically, this resembles the use of intermediary forces such as the Avars or Turkoman principalities to pressure Rome and the Ottoman Empire.
At the center of all three stages lies the concept of patience. Iran’s Shiite political culture is also deeply rooted in the idea of waiting. The defining characteristic of the awaited Mahdi is precisely that he is awaited. Consequently, “waiting” constitutes one of the most deeply embedded traits of Iran’s national spirit.
What Will Iran Do?
In the short term, Iran’s primary course of action will largely be to wait. It will look for opportunities arising from leadership changes in the United States or Israel, domestic political deadlock, or growing economic pressures.
For a civilization and political culture that has spent centuries awaiting a savior (the Mahdi), reaching an agreement with a new administration is both conceivable and historically consistent.
This approach makes Iran not an actor that has been defeated, but one that plays for time itself. The strategic continuity stretching from the Trench to Hormuz demonstrates that Iran is not merely a state but a bearer of a profound civilizational spirit.
Throughout this conflict, the Islamic world has stood on what it perceives as the right side of history and alongside the oppressed. At this critical juncture, the Iranian state should likewise fulfill its responsibilities by moving away from sectarian expansionist policies and taking its rightful place within the spirit of unity and solidarity of the Islamic world. Only then can that ancient defensive spirit extending from the Trench to Hormuz evolve into a source of wisdom serving not only Iran, but the shared future of the entire Muslim Ummah.
Source:Al Jazeera.net
*Fahri Şahin is a Turkish political analyst.
