Traditionally, it is perceived that attack is the most effective form of defense. However, in modern history, defense is the best form of defense, at least in the first stage of conflicts. Letting your rival strike first is almost exclusively more efficient for the following reasons.

First, you position yourself as the victim, providing “justification” for your countermeasures, regardless of their brutality. Second, it affords you sufficient time to analyze your competitor’s strengths and weaknesses as they reveal their cards during the initial strike, no matter how well they play the game. Third, weaknesses become apparent when the assault deviates from its planned course, as it usually does.

Moreover, this approach grants you insight into how the opponent perceives you—what they know and do not know about your capabilities. This information is crucial for planning an effective response.

Initially, you may endure a setback during the first blow. However, as your competitor exhausts their steam and ventures into the spectrum of the unknown, the initial success often overinflates their confidence, luring their perception of objective reality. This circumstance creates an opportune time for your strategic countermove.

Historically, the West has often emerged victorious in wars, primarily due to the notion of allowing the enemy to strike first. Examples such as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Nazi Germany’s blitz in Western Europe, the Eastern Front down to North Africa, Russia's initial successful invasion of Ukraine, and Hamas's sudden inland attack on Israel, even the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, implicitly indicate in historical textbooks that attack is not the best form of defense.

China appears to grasp this conflict principle by avoiding any initial offensive moves, recognizing that the first blow can lead to the ultimate downfall.

However, Iran undermines both principles by exploiting both options, causing maximum damage to itself and others. It is evident that Iran will not emerge victorious in the conflict; it stings to its death—a diabolic bloodbee, empowered by the East and overpowered by the West.

--------------------

Arez Barzinjy

Bachelor of Arts in International Studies and Law at the American University of Iraq, Sulaimani

Masters of Art in Global Political Economy and Development at University of Kassel, Germany

[The views expressed in this article are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official position of BasNews.]