18/06/2026
Share:
18/06/2026
Share:
People rarely reject analysis because it is wrong. They reject it because it forces them to confront possibilities they would rather avoid. The phenomenon is familiar in sports. A football fan does not want to hear about his team’s weaknesses or his opponent’s strengths. He wants reassurance that victory is coming. But politics is not football.
The story does not end with the final whistle. It begins after the fighting stops and the agreements are signed. The debate surrounding Iran illustrates the point. Many expected conflict to weaken, isolate, or even remove the Iranian regime from the regional equation. Instead, attention shifted to U.S.-Iran understandings, possible economic rehabilitation, and the uncomfortable prospect that Gulf states could end up footing part of the bill for a stronger Iran they had little or no role in shaping. Yet this is precisely where serious analysis becomes necessary.
Asking uncomfortable questions is not an act of sympathy for Iran, nor a sign of pessimism. It is the minimum requirement of strategic thinking. Too often, uncomfortable analysis is dismissed as bias, while warnings are ignored until events make them impossible to deny. But explaining possible risks before they materialize is far more valuable than explaining actual failures after they occur. In a burdened Middle East, this habit has become especially costly. International politics does not reward wishful thinking. National interests are protected not by denying unpleasant scenarios or sugarcoating the truth, but by preparing for them before they arrive. That can only happen when dialogue is welcomed and different views are respected.
By Abdulaziz Al-Anjeri
