[Salon] Trump was ‘shocked’ that Iran fought back. He shouldn’t have been - Guest Post by Stephen Kinzer, Boston Globe

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/09/16/opinion/trump-iran-history-pressure-resistance/ Trump was ‘shocked’ that Iran fought back. He shouldn’t have been. A deep history of Persian resistance presaged the pushback. By Stephen Kinzer – Boston Globe - September 16, 2026 Future historians may tell the story of the Iran war through a quote from President Trump that perfectly encapsulates it. “We were shocked,” Trump said after the first US-Israeli attack failed to destroy Iran’s government. “They fought back.” The president, fresh from an easy triumph in Venezuela, thought Iran would fall just as easily. But instead of success, he hit a brick wall. Only by ignoring every serious scholar and intelligence analyst was it possible for Trump to delude himself into thinking that Iran was a soft target. In fact, the opposite is true. History, religious tradition, and political culture combine to give Iranians extraordinary resilience. Iran has one of the richest histories of any country on earth. It is 10 times as old as the United States, tracing its roots back to Persian emperors like Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes. Iranians consider themselves part of something that is grand and magnificent. Their attachment to their country is profoundly emotional. One reason Iranians resist foreign intervention so fiercely is that they have had so much practice. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and Tamerlane ravaged their land. Arabs invaded and imposed Islam. In the 19th century, Russia seized large swaths of Iran’s territory. The name of one of the treaties by which Iran lost that territory — Turkmenchay — has become a curse word in Iran. Any Iranian who supports a deal with the United States risks being accused of accepting “another Turkmenchay.” That is the equivalent of banishment from Iranian politics. This intense historical sensitivity makes any US-Iran accord difficult. Another obstacle is the sorry record of relations between the two countries. Iran was an incipient democracy after World War II, but its government challenged the economic order imposed by the United States and Britain by nationalizing its oil industry. In 1953 President Dwight Eisenhower used the CIA to depose Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had led the drive for oil nationalization. That led to a quarter-century of royal dictatorship, followed by the 1978-9 hostage crisis and nearly a half-century of religious rule. The one seeming breakthrough, President Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal, evaporated after Trump withdrew from it. Americans may see Iran as malign and untrustworthy, but the feeling is mutual. The binding effect of Shia Islam, which most Iranians profess, also gives them inspiration to resist. Its two most revered figures, Ali and Hussein, were 7th-century martyrs who the Shia believe died defending justice against tyranny. This legacy, enriched over centuries, has given Iranians a sense that suffering oppression at the hands of evildoers is pleasing to God. Even many unbelievers have absorbed the Shia principle that it is morally wrong to capitulate to iniquitous power. Shia believers do not have a “martyr complex,” as is sometimes asserted, but neither do they succumb easily. Trump’s recently announced economic sanctions — a “crushing economic operation,” he called it — will undoubtedly hurt many Iranians. It is unlikely, however, to drive them to demand that their leaders make a deal with Americans or Israelis. Domestic Iranian politics combines with history and tradition to stiffen the country’s resistance. The country’s new leaders are decidedly more militant than those who were killed in the first wave of US-Israeli attacks. They see this war as a gift because it gives them a historic chance to kick the United States out of the Middle East. That gives them an incentive to fight on and to reject compromise or cease-fire. Iranians do not cheer for their government. Many and perhaps most of them wish for a different kind of society. At this moment, though, the Revolutionary Guard and its allies are the ones defending Iran against an enemy that seems to want to end its existence as a sovereign nation. People naturally support their leaders when their country is attacked. President George W. Bush’s popularity rating soared to 90 percent after the 9/11 bombings. Iran’s government is benefiting from that same rally-round-the-flag impulse. For years the United States has pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran. Its defenders have a simple explanation for why it has failed: It hasn’t been maximum enough. Just keep turning up the pressure, they insist, and at some point Iran will collapse into America’s lap. Trump’s new sanctions, which he called “an economic D-Day” for Iran, are the latest iteration of “maximum pressure.” Iran’s great weapon in this war is its resilience and ability to absorb pain. Americans are unhappy to read that more than a dozen US service members have been killed since this war began. Iran, by contrast, absorbed hundreds of thousands of casualties in its war with Iraq in the 1980s. While Americans grumble about rising gas prices, Iranians have endured economic devastation wrought by decades of US-sponsored sanctions. It’s clear which country is better girded for a long conflict. Trump launched this war with the same combination of arrogance and ignorance that shaped his predecessors’ interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. All of his tactical gambits have foundered on the shoals of Iranian resistance. This war has shown the world more than tragedy. It is also a reminder that 25 centuries of Iranian history have forged a remarkably tenacious nation. Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson School of International and Public Affairs at Brown University.