President Donald Trump recently justified renewed military action against Iran by saying Tehran “did not obey what they’re supposed to obey” under a memorandum of understanding intended to halt the fighting.
Whether one believes Iran violated that agreement or not, one word deserves closer examination: obey.
In international affairs, nations negotiate. They bargain, threaten, deter, deceive and sometimes violate agreements.
But sovereign states do not “obey” another nation’s leader in the way a subordinate obeys a superior. That distinction matters because language often reveals how leaders view both diplomacy and power.
The collapse of the memorandum has already produced predictable consequences. American forces responded with significant airstrikes against Iranian military infrastructure.
Iran, in turn, declared itself no longer bound by the agreement and resumed attacks against American and regional targets, with two American soldiers killed during Iranian strikes in Jordan on Friday, and a third killed Saturday in northern Iraq. Each side insists the other crossed the line first. Each military response becomes justification for the next.
This is the very definition of the fog of war.
The phrase is often associated with battlefield confusion: the uncertainty surrounding intelligence, troop movements and enemy intentions.
But there is another kind of fog that can be equally dangerous: the fog created when certainty replaces humility.
History repeatedly demonstrates that wars are often prolonged not because nations lack military strength, but because leaders become convinced they fully understand an adversary’s motivations and believe superior force alone can dictate outcomes.
That confidence has repeatedly proven costly.
The United States unquestionably possesses overwhelming military capabilities.
Few nations can match its technological sophistication, global reach or ability to project force. Yet military superiority has never guaranteed political success. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan all serve as reminders that battlefield victories do not always produce lasting strategic results.
Iran presents its own challenge. Its leaders have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to absorb severe economic hardship, diplomatic isolation and military losses in pursuit of objectives they consider vital.
That does not make their decisions wise or justified. It simply means they often calculate costs differently than American policymakers expect.
Trump has often found success in chaotic environments by projecting unpredictability to get opponents to back down.
