The Qur'an and the Logic of Escalation: Why the Iran War Refuses to End
By Abbas Sadeghian, Ph.D.
Clinical Neuropsychologist
Military analysts generally explain the continuing confrontation between the United States and Iran in terms of deterrence, military capability, regional alliances, and domestic political pressures. These explanations are important, but they may not tell the entire story. There is another dimension that receives remarkably little attention in Western strategic analysis: the religious framework through which Iran's political leadership often interprets conflict. Whether one supports or opposes the Islamic Republic, understanding how its leaders publicly frame war and retaliation is essential if one hopes to understand why the conflict repeatedly returns to the battlefield despite repeated diplomatic efforts.
Recent weeks have demonstrated this pattern with striking clarity. Following the collapse of negotiations, the United States resumed air strikes against Iranian military targets, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz, arguing that the attacks were intended to protect international shipping and degrade Iran's military capabilities. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks against American military facilities and regional partners. The result has been another cycle of attack and retaliation rather than a return to diplomacy.
Many commentators interpret this simply as deterrence theory in action. Washington strikes to restore credibility. Tehran retaliates to restore deterrence. Each side believes that failure to respond would invite further aggression. While this explanation has considerable merit, it overlooks the possibility that Iran's leaders are also operating within a religious and legal tradition that explicitly discusses how aggression should be answered.
The Qur'an contains one of the clearest statements on proportional retaliation in Surah Al-Baqarah (2:194):
"Whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him."
This phrase " ("in the same manner as he attacked you") has traditionally been understood by Islamic jurists as expressing the principle of proportionality. Retaliation is permitted, but it should not exceed the original aggression.
This principle is reinforced only a few verses earlier:
"Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not love the transgressors." (Qur'an 2:190)
These verses are not military manuals, nor do they dictate the operational decisions of a modern nation-state. Nevertheless, they provide an ethical framework that has influenced Islamic legal thought for centuries. A government that explicitly derives legitimacy from Islam is unlikely to ignore these principles entirely when presenting its actions to its own population and to the broader Muslim world.
This does not mean that religion alone determines Iranian strategy. Governments make decisions based on intelligence, military capability, domestic politics, economics, and international alliances. However, religious concepts can shape how those decisions are understood, justified, and communicated. Political psychology teaches us that leaders rarely separate strategic calculation from ideological belief. Instead, the two often reinforce one another.
From this perspective, every American strike creates more than military damage. It also creates justification for a proportional response. Once retaliation occurs, American leaders face their own political pressure to answer in kind. The result is a reciprocal process in which each side believes it is responding rather than initiating.
This reciprocal logic helps explain why ceasefires in this conflict have repeatedly collapsed. Negotiations may suspend military operations temporarily, but as long as one side resumes military action, the other side perceives itself as justified-- both strategically and, potentially, religiously-- in responding. Recent exchanges illustrate this pattern. After renewed American strikes against Iranian military infrastructure around the Strait of Hormuz, Iran launched attacks on U.S.-related targets in Jordan and elsewhere. The United States then responded with another wave of strikes, citing the deaths of American service members. Each action became the justification for the next.
The political psychology of escalation is remarkably consistent across history. Rarely do nations describe themselves as aggressors. Instead, each side constructs a narrative in which its own actions are defensive, necessary, and morally justified. This process gradually transforms retaliation into routine policy. Every military response is presented as restoring deterrence, while every retaliation by the opponent becomes evidence that even stronger measures are required.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
