The Complexity of Authoritarian Resistance: Lessons from the Persian Gulf
It is often assumed that persistent external pressure will compel authoritarian figures to concede. However, experience indicates that the opposite frequently occurs; when survival is at stake, capitulation can be perceived as a greater threat than defiance. This paradox has been evident in the history of the Persian Gulf, particularly during the confrontations involving Saddam Hussein and, more recently, the Iranian regime under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Historical Context: Saddam Hussein’s Resolve
In 1991, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s refusal to exit Kuwait was driven by a fear of humiliation, potential defection from within his regime, and the looming risk of a coup. Similarly, Khamenei finds himself in a precarious position today; any perceived concession to U.S. pressure could undermine his authority domestically and weaken his grip on power. Historical examples demonstrate that overwhelming pressure can solidify defiance, suggesting that enduring hardship may be politically safer than surrender.
The Power of Perception
During a 2025 States of the Union address, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that Operation Midnight Hammer had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear endeavors. However, contradictions arose when Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, revealed that the program was not completely dismantled. His frustration over Iranian leaders not capitulating in light of U.S. naval capabilities mirrored the sentiments expressed by previous Republican presidents.
- 1991 and 2003 Campaigns: In both instances, extensive U.S. military forces were positioned to pressure Saddam to relinquish weapons of mass destruction and withdraw from Kuwait. Despite the superior military power of a coalition comprising over 40 nations, Saddam did not yield, viewing such actions as a manifestation of weakness ripe for internal dissent.
The Iranian Dilemma
Khamenei experiences a parallel conundrum today. Yielding to pressure could erode his standing not just among the populace but also within critical power structures such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. A February 2026 report highlighted that the regime views defiance of U.S. demands as less risky than possible concessions that could threaten their stability.
Strategic Calculations
Historically, Saddam calculated that extending conflict, even with minimal chances of inflicting U.S. casualties, was preferable to retreat, which could be interpreted as capitulation. His ultimate strategy hinged on fostering war fatigue, aiming to turn U.S. public sentiment against the conflict.
- Enduring Grit of Iran: Today, Iran’s leadership may opt to withstand potential strikes rather than submit to U.S. demands. Even amid threats of substantial military action, the Iranian regime may believe that prolonging tensions could yield benefits, such as rising oil prices and implications for U.S. domestic politics.
The Role of Diplomacy in High-Stakes Conflicts
Even as high-level talks take place, the survival logic that underscores both the U.S. and Iranian positions complicates any opportunities for effective negotiation. In January 1991, diplomatic discussions in Geneva between U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and Iraqi officials failed primarily because the U.S. rejected any concessions that could allow Saddam to save face, leading to conflict rather than compromise.
The Broader Implications
Similar dynamics are evident in the current U.S.-Iran negotiations. Discussions held in Geneva seem unlikely to provide meaningful relief from sanctions, which continue to destabilize the Iranian economy. As in 1991, the fear of domestic upheaval prevents either side from making significant concessions.
Lessons for the Future
Historical experiences from the Persian Gulf should serve as critical insights for U.S. policymakers. After the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein framed his retreat as a “dignified victory,” successfully maintaining his regime in spite of military setbacks. In line with this, Khamenei may prioritize regime survival over military setbacks, knowing that sanctions disproportionately impact the general populace rather than political elites who often find ways to benefit amidst adversity.
- Endurance Over Immediate Outcomes: Military interventions in the Persian Gulf have historically not led to swift regime changes. The impact of external military capabilities does not guarantee political transformations, highlighting the need for a nuanced approach when considering military options.
In summary, the interplay of survival instincts among authoritarian leaders underscores the complexity of international relations in the Middle East. As the U.S. navigates its relationship with Iran, recognizing the historical precedent of resistance against overwhelming force may be crucial for developing effective, strategic responses.
