Written by: Abdullah Al-Umairah

A colleague asked me:
Do you in the Gulf understand the Iranians more than others?

I told him:
If you want to understand Iran, do not begin with it; rather, begin by understanding how people think in similar environments close to you.

The issue is not the “nationality” of thinking,
but the patterns of thinking shaped by history, culture, and politics.

Iran, like other states with long experiences of conflict,
has developed a particular approach to managing crises, based on:

maneuvering, buying time, and keeping doors open,
with a psychological management that reinterprets outcomes in favor of the self,
and provocation without resolution… which may shift from strength into a burden.

This does not indicate superiority or weakness…
but reflects a pattern of thinking formed through accumulated experiences,
often marked by moments of setback.

At times, this behavior may appear as:

circumvention,
evasion,
or deliberate ambiguity.

But in deeper analysis, it is:

a continuous attempt to avoid immediate and direct loss.

Here lies the confusion:
what one side sees as “maneuvering”…
another sees as “lack of clarity” or “manipulation.”

To understand Iran…
do not look only at what it says,
but at how it manages time, space, and possibilities.

The Art of the Possible and the Impossible

A political concept that summarizes the path of states.

In advanced states that plan with developed knowledge,
action is not limited to achieving what is possible,
but extends to creating what is possible itself.

They seek to:
turn today’s possible into a foundation,
and make tomorrow’s impossible a goal that can be achieved.

The possible: preserving position.
The impossible: reshaping reality.

Iran, and those that share a similar pattern of thinking,
master the art of the possible,
and manage conflict within its boundaries.

Those who master the possible… remain.
Those who master the impossible… transform.

It does not move in a straight line…
but within a circle.

States are not understood as “traits”…
but as patterns of behavior.

Iran as a Model

Iran is an example of a state that:

negotiates… maneuvers… evades… and provokes,
calms… and signals,
moves without declaring the end.

It adopts a firm belief in its ability to manage the game with intelligence exceeding that of its rivals,
drawing on a long historical legacy in bargaining and maneuvering.

In this context, the figure of “Al-Hurmuzan” is invoked,
known for his repeated evasions, before the confrontation was resolved when his approach was more accurately understood,
as a reminder that excessive reliance on cunning does not prevent a different ending.

From Al-Hurmuzan to today,
the method of maneuver remains constant,
but the outcome is not determined by the one who maneuvers,
but by the one who reads the maneuver.

If you want to understand Iran…
understand how the game is managed, not how the words are spoken.

Does one who sees themselves as the center of history… truly read the world?

When a state sees itself as the center of history…
it reflects its own narrative about itself… not the reality of the world.

This is known as collective identity inflation,
a phenomenon that does not reflect real strength, but rather reveals:

a need to reinforce identity,
or compensation for historical anxiety or prolonged conflicts.