Given the 24/7 nature of social media news cycle, our expectations and understanding of how history develops has been warped.

For two weeks now so-called experts are trying to predict what Iran’s response to Israel’s strike in Damascus – where it killed 7 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) members – would be. At first, Iran (which Does Business As the Islamic Republic of Iran) said it would strike in 48 hours, then after Ramadan, then after Eid al Fitr. Now, with nations warning their diplomats to leave the region and airlines cancelling flights to/from Iran and/or Israel, the world is on edge, waiting for… something.

For one, it’s a reminder that not only war is more profitable than peace, but that warmongers are egging the Jewish State of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran (IR) to escalate, rather then de-escalate, this latest flare-up.

One thing I have learned after a few months of digging into Iran’s history and listening to Iranians from all over the world is that some of the frustration and anger around the IR stems not just from a lack of freedoms and liberties of its citizens, but also the economic reality where the IR leverages Iran’s vast wealth – no, not just carpets, pistachios & arguably the world’s best ice cream and food, but mainly oil and natural gas, of note – to fund various proxies around the world, notably in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and elsewhere. Money is a motif in Iranian affairs, for a proportion of the population were somewhat critical of the Shah for some of his spending ways, which ultimately were not out of the norm for monarchies, but added to a confluence of factors in his downfall. While concepts like Taarof (extreme courtesy and etiquette) and Oghde (psychological complex around pride, ambition and amplified sometimes by comparing oneself to others) both help and hinder Iranians’ course to success, much of what ails Iranian society stems from financial jealousy & curiosity. Thus when this is multiplied at a societal and political level after 45 years of stomping on freedom and liberties, it explains how history is playing out now with the Regime, with some parallels of how things played out with the Shah.

To make sense of things, and understand what and how the IR would react, I decided to look at Iran through the lens of business.

Imagine if Iran were a corporation whose main product lines were the dirtiest goods possible – oil & gas – and whose main purchases included weapons & arms.

The current management team took over after pushing out the former CEO, and a hostile takeover masqueraded as a friendly merger of equals, with one group sidelining the other & seizing total control over operations and the board.

Post-close, the C suite changed strategies. The one constant? Its use of funds have always been questioned by one set of stakeholder or other, with major creditors today being some of the largest governments in the world who are dead set against Western nations. During the Shah, some of the poorer constituents raised their eyebrow at some of the expenditures – like Iran’s lavish 2500 year anniversary celebration, a boondoggle that both elevated Iran’s profile, but ultimately, the shareholders (the Iranian citizens) questioned as an expense. As a monarchy, the Finance dept was powerless. Today, Iran is a theocratic republic, but it’s the “venture bets” that have come at the expense of its internal needs. For that and other reasons, the republic form of government has taken on a negative connotation.

In my previous article on this topic, I had suggested that to predict the IR’s next move, it was paramount to ask “WHY” it would behave a given way, before trying to determine “WHAT” it would do.

War is Business. And Business is Good.

To borrow a business term, the IR seized power via “hostile takeover.” While the 1979 Revolution is branded as a popular movement where the clerics and socialists combined their energies and forces to topple the last king, or Shah, of Iran… it could also certainly be viewed as a “coup” hence hostile takeover where a person or group plotted, planned and mobilized its resources to seize control of an organization. For 45 years, that takeover of power dramatically shifted the direction of the “country/organization” and altered the course of history. Once the closest ally in the region for America, overnight the 1979 revolution pitted Iran as the enemy of the West, with America being branded as the “Great Satan” and Israel as the “Little Satan.” Yet despite waves of sanctions, many EU countries continue to do business with the Iranian organization known as the Islamic Regime.

If you fast forward to today, one must take into account two major developments that also changed the course of history. 

The Islamic Regime Are Good Students of History

The first is that the Iraq War of 2003 toppled Saddam Hussein and over the course of two decades created a vacuum which led to Iraq falling under the sphere of Iran. A Sunni Iraqi who ruled the majoritarily Shia nation with an iron fist, Saddam led an invasion of Iran in 1980, the subsequent 8-year war that cost a million lives on both sides. But at that time, he was backed by the West, who supplied Iraq with money, weapons (including chemical weapons, which Saddam used on Iranians and Iraqi alike). Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini died in 1988. By staying in power, Saddam’s subsequent invasion of Kuwait in 1990 led to the Gulf War, which put him straight into the crossfire of America. By 2003, following 9/11, America had sealed his fate and decided to invade Iraq, toppling Saddam. When he died, Iraq – which was majoritarily Shia – began a gradual but definite shift under Iran’s sphere of influence. Today, Iraq has been weakened, allowing Iran to project its philosophies under the Axis of Resistance not just over Iraq, but also Hezbollah in Lebanon, alongside Russia and China, creating a bipolar world order to match the West.

The second, is less an event, but a trend, and that being the rise of Russia and China – who back Iran – to create a bipolar reality and counter-weight to American & Western hegemony. As such, when trying to determine what Iran may or not may not do, one must take into account the larger backdrop. The reality is history was never conducted let alone covered in the real-time, 247 news cycle, amplified by social media world we now live in. We refresh news websites, update our timelines and expect developments, whereas in reality these take time to play out.When American general Smedley Butler said “war is a racket,” he was right. War is big business. For example, the share price of Halliburton rose from $8 in 2002 to $70 a decade later, fueled by the blood of Iraqi civilians and lives of American soldiers. As such, to understand what may have been happening since the IDF’s April 1 strike on Damascus, let’s imagine the back-channel communications on both diplomatic and economic terms.

Playing the Long Game

For one, the Islamic Regime is playing a very long game. When Mohammad Reza Pahlavi said “If I go, Iran goes… and if Iran goes, the whole middle east will go with it,” he wasn’t wrong. As the last king – or Shah – of Iran, the end of his reign & death marked the end of a 2500 year old monarchy, in the oldest nation in the world, Iran, which goes back to 3200 BC. His overthrowing & subsequent death (due to cancer) set forth a domino effect which led to the current world order. While those who oppose the current rules in Iran hope that the regime loses its grip on power, the reality is that after 45 years in power, it can continue to maintain its grip for another 4, 45, or 450 years, no matter how much discontent and unrest exists within the country. In the most recent elections, turnout was underwhelming, in a tacit lack of faith in the regime. But with no Second Amendment, for one, and Russia and China continuing to fill the regime’s coffers with the purchase of oil and weapons, it’s hard to fathom how the regime would just go away. So when it comes to planning its next step, the regime doesn’t really benefit from doing anything, because any response to Israel’s attack on Israeli interests inside or outside the Jewish state will lead to a strong retaliation, since Israel’s moves and actions have made it clear that it seeks to escalate the conflict into a broader regional war… to pull its main sponsor, America, into the fray. Reality is Israel is one of the world’s strongest militaries, a nuclear force, with the firepower to attack Iran and considerably set back its nuclear program. Iranians are clever people, and they have learned from lessons of history: The 1980-88 Iraq war where Iran was isolated taught the regime that it needs to fend for itself. Iran survived and fought back thanks to the weapons it had secured pre-1979 revolution. Then when America invaded Iraq in 2003 (which didn’t have WMDs) but left nuclear power North Korea alone.

People ask me if Iran has nuclear weapons. Forgive me – a media executive – of thinking along the lines of content + distribution, but if the warhead was the former and delivery mechanism the latter, then I suspect they have that “optionality.” I recognize Russia is a signatory to treaties that prevent it from giving technology or know-how to others, but realistically, do you think Putin cares? If you think of the analogy with corporations, you often times hear of executives who don’t exactly adhere to every single term and clause of agreements they have signed. With Iran, I suspect that they have nuclear capabilities, meaning their missile to deliver it but Russia’s nuclear warhead (for example). They may not have it in hand, but in exchange for drones, oil and just to stay on Putin’s side, that’s the deal they may agreed to, even if relying on a handshake agreement.

Secure Your Support

If I was weighing a major, risky endeavor or initiative that could harm my business let alone my control of it, I would certainly check in with my investors, advisors, professional (accountants, lawyers) before diving in. Similarly, my educated guess is the regime was holding two sets of conversations, one internally trying to “war plan” the tit-for-tat that would ensure if it lobbied missiles into Israel, and another external one with its main backers Russia and China. Would they support Iran economically? Diplomatically? Militarily? 

“With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?”

China and Russia share no religious affinity with Iran (ironically, a fairly secular nation now, but more conservative in 1979). But both view Iran as a key geo-political nexus of power. Anecdotally, in a 1970’s era interview with CBS, the Shah was asked about a myriad of investments – be it in military weapons, etc. – when asked about a possible purchase of Concorde planes, Mohammad Reza sounded like a pragmatic and prudent CEO of the Iran organization/corporation who said he’d be interested in the supersonic planes, provided it made economic sense. But given Iran’s geographic location – halfway between Tokyo and London – it would certainly make sense (especially if the Tokyo – Tehran – London route would continue onto Los Angeles). The Shah had developed Iran into the fifth strongest military in the world. But it’s as if the world powers knew he would not actually lead the country into war, and would not really want to dare taking Iran on. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, the “net present value” of an company (Iran) whose CEO (Shah) that doesn’t buy an endlessly growing order of American goods (military weaponry) from US corporations (military industrial complex) isn’t all that high, thus, yet another reason why eventually, the Shah was not of value to America. Richard Nixon conceded much of this in a TV interview.

Agree or disagree with his policies, be a fan or critic of monarchies, but as someone who’s studied leaders (of which Iran has had many, Zartosht, Kourosh-e-Bozorg, Reza Shah, Khomeini), Mohammad Reza Shah certainly developed into a leader, and visionary one at that. Indeed, many of the IR’s current “leadership & management team” are effectively continuations of the previous CEO’s (the Shah) decisions and investments. That said, with advances in technology and strong ties to Russia and China, the nation has leveraged its incredible human resources and ingenuity to innovate on many fronts.

The reality is, were it not to appease the hard liners in its ranks or satisfy its fanboys around the world, the IR would be better served to do nothing (though as its “Human Resources” department would note: that would certainly affect morale of its IRGC employees who are the targets of Israel’s precise-as-hell bombs). The IR knows – just as the Shah knew when he said so in that same CBS interview – that Iran is a fortress of sorts. The geography is mountainous, making ground attacks improbable. It also makes naval attacks nearly impossible, as the Persian Gulf counts not one but multiple obstacles for foreign forces. While America and Israel can certainly strike via air, it is unclear what that would do. For one, Iran also learned from history when Israel struck the Osiraq nuclear plant in Iraq in 1981, so the IR has built its nuclear projects deep underground.

Admittedly, I used to think that if foreign forces were to fire even a single bullet or drop a sole bomb in Iranian soil, Iranian citizens would rally around their government. But given the lacklustre election turnout and other anecdotal signs, I don’t think anything would change the people’s lack of love for the regime. But the reality is no Iranian – be it inside the country or amongst the diaspora – favors foreign military intervention. While the monarchists amongst the many opposition groups (and there aren’t many opposition groups or figures that have popular support, other than one evident one) are criticized for many things, to their credit, none of them favor foreign military intervention, either… even if they are amongst the most fervent opponents to the clerics ruling the country.

Iran is a Paradox

Iran is a paradox on many levels. An endless series of contradictions, ironies and indeed, tragedies. For example, after the 1979 revolution, the clerics held not one but two rounds of purges to eliminate threats to its newly-seized power. That included members of the Artesh (or military) and many of its pilots, who ranked along the best in the world then, thanks to American planes and training. That included the “father of the Iranian Air Force,” Nader Jahanbani, whose services, leadership and experience sure would have helped during the 1980-88 war against Iraq, where the Iranian Air Force helped fend off Iraq’s invasion and advances. When GE’s Jack Welch, crowned as the manager of the century by Fortune, chose his successor Jack Immelt, he effectively also purged the runner up’s, James McKierny and Bob Cardoni, who then de-camped to 3M and Home Depot respectively, but who, you know, could have helped as GE slid in glory & gain.

Back to war, the 1981 strike on the H-3 airfields at the Al-Waleed base in western Iraq remains one of the most audacious and successful aerial missions in the history of warfare. Thus, even though the surviving Iranian pilots and remaining armed forces were traumatized and paranoid about purges, they remained patriotic to their country and performed their duty to defend their vatan, or homeland. But if the regime were realistic (which they are on certain levels), they would acknowledge that a protracted conflict with any nation – particularly Israel, which Iran does not share a border nor have any territorial disputes with – would not be popular and certainly not attract the kind of popular support any successful war requires. One reason Iran ultimately defeated Iraq (in theory it was a ceasefire, thus stalemate, but over a longer arc, Iran won, just by judging by the relative status of the two nations) thanks to their much larger population.

Yes, Iran’s Artesh and IRGC counts many members, and those will no doubt fight (some on ideological grounds, some due to economic benefit), but a war which would see Iran considerably weakened and its nuclear program derailed it not delayed or outright destroyed would not be sustainable, or wise.

So the IR is in this peculiar spot: do something for militant, hard-line clerics and its Axis of Resistance fanboys around the world, even though the vast majority of Iranians probably would go AWOL instead of fighting against Israel. But in doing so, it also dramatically increases the existential threat it faces, making a response somewhat counter-effective to its long term goal of staying in power.

Peace is A Bargaining Chip

So what to do? I think it was wise for the IR to try to make a muted response (i.e. not responding to IDF’s Damascus assassination of 7 of its IRGC members) by tying it to a cease-fire in Gaza, which would not only serve a humanitarian purpose, but also de-escalate the conflict and further play into its Public Relations & propaganda campaign to win the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world when many Arab nations are implicitly or explicitly supporting the “zionist entity,” whom they blame for all the world’s current problems. As any good CMO or marketer would tell you, you can’t buy that kind of goodwill with good old fashioned advertising, it takes good PR! Noteworthy in all of this is also the dichotomy between the “messaging” the regime management inside the country versus that to the West, stating in domestic media that there won’t be any revenge against Israel because those IRGC generals killed in Damascus were involved in October 7 – peculiar, since it had previously denied any knowledge of Hamas planning, which was kept relatively secret to avoid detection by the intelligence-seeking Shin Bet. That doesn’t prevent them from presenting a different narrative to western media hoping to secure any and all concessions from the West. After all, the US hasn’t enforced or renewed added sanctions, conditioning Iran to act accordingly.

That said, if it does nothing, then its signaling to Israel that its members are sitting ducks, not just outside of Iran, but inside as well. So while it should do nothing, it also almost has to do something. 
The risk isn’t merely Israel’s response, but the embarrassment that Iran’s missiles – needing to travel over Iraq, Jordan and possibly Syria into Israel – would be intercepted. How deflating would that be?

Has the IR’s Response Begun?

When in 1990 Saddam launched a myriad of scuds into Tel Aviv, the archaic missiles did some damage, if not mainly psychological. Today, Israel’s defenses are more robust. If you look at the prowess of the Iron Dome and David’s Sling (Israel’s short and long range missile defense systems), it’s a statistical model that ultimately does not have an endless amount of ammo to use in defense, either… so it’s perfectly plausible to think that while the IR used Ramadan and Eid Al Fitr as cloaks to justify the delayed response, they were back channeling with Russia and China to secure their base, while plotting with its proxies to send a message to Israel to back off.

Thus, it’s possible we are actually seeing Iran’s response as we speak, starting with its proxies – yesterday Hezbollah in Lebanon – to deplete and test the Iron Dome, and then ending with a salvo from Iranian soil for symbolic purposes, which sadly, would mark the first time Iran would have attacked a nation since the days of Darius III (the Shah who eventually lost the empire, by losing not once, twice but three times to Alexander the Great by 330 BC).

The Islamic Republic is a Corporate Venture Capitalist, of sorts…

Since we’re using the business analogy, the IR has invested as a “corporate venture capitalist” in a plethora of “startups,” some growing into formidable operations in their own right.

Shia Hezbollah started off as resistance against Israeli invasions into Lebanon, but developed into a proper militia and army while becoming a powerful political force, serving humanitarian and administrative duties as well. There may be Shias in Lebanon who dislike parts of Hezbollah, but there are also oddly enough Sunni Muslims and Christian Lebanese (though certainly not a majority of them) who support some of Hezbollah’s “vision” and “missions” statements, too, at least on nationalistic grounds.

Another “investment” the IR has made, in Palestine, is Hamas, which has seen its profile elevated since 10/7. The IR’s investment in Hamas was not only ideological, but also by providing arms which is actually largely underwritten by Qatar… so a sort of “joint venture” between the Gulf Arab nation and the Islamic regime in Iran.

A New World Islamic Order?

All of this also shatters the myth that the Muslim world is divided along Sunni vs Shia lines, since Hamas is Sunni. To me, what Jared Kushner said about the new “world order” in the Islamic world is more accurate: there are two spheres of thought, those who prioritize being aligned with the West for social and economic reasons, versus those who oppose “Western social, moral, economic and political hegemony” and build their strategic planning and operational tactics around it.

Ultimately, Karl Marx was right in that economic determinism explains all… as both the IR and America are driven by economic interests, though they view the world in polarly opposite views.

Thus, to conclude, to understand what the Islamic Regime in Iran may or may not do, you need to expand the timeline to see these smaller events in a larger continuum, but also ask yourself what the end goal is. For the IR, revenge is not the main driver, survival and growth is… and that means Iran’s response may be happening as we speak, but we our tunnel vision and desire for shock and awe prevents us from seeing it.