Tehran-Iranian war stories often remind us of the country’s long, rich history of conflict. From the campaign of Cyrus the Great to the fierce resistance to the invaders, Iran’s past is filled with stories of courage and combat.
But can pride in the past really help us understand today’s war? The gentle, humorous Persian proverb says, “Suppose your father was a clever man. How much of his wisdom remains in you?” This phrase emphasizes an important truth. Inherited legacy is hollow if understood, reinterpreted and embodied in the present.
Contrary to popular belief, war is not merely an expression of raw instinct. It is a deeply cultural act. Conflicts become war only when planning, coordination and strategy shape instincts. It is a culture that turns primitive attacks into the pursuit of human survival. This is the path between chaos and meaning, between destruction and conservation.
Therefore, assessing war through an appropriate, human-centered, cultural lens is not about counting the deaths, but about assessing its effectiveness in sustaining life. The claim that “we killed a lot” is not a valid metric. We are not wolves or hyenas whose sole purpose is genocide. Even if we are forced to kill, we will not lose sight of our true purpose. It’s about stopping the enemy, dismantling anti-human war machines, and ultimately protecting life, not increasing the number of victims.
The goal is to balance. Minimal costs, necessary consequences – not particularly the cost of human life, and none of the greatest benefits at any cost. Our philosophy regarding the war economy is also clear. The goal is not to maintain a prosperous war economy like the American military industrial complex, but to reduce the war-driven economy to zero. This reflects the fundamental difference between Iranian approaches and specific regional and global approaches to the meaning of war.
Unlike Israel, Iran evaluates war based on culture rather than damage. This means that Iran intentionally keeps casualties low. This action is particularly important in contrast to a regime that not only commits genocide, but also targets in its massacre, children, families, and influential civilians such as medical staff, journalists and academics.
The existence of war ethics in Iran’s approach to war comes from a deeply rooted perspective, not from hypocrisy or airborne moral attitudes. Israeli news sources have published limited images of the extent of destruction caused by Iranian missiles. Considering these censored images, the strength of the destruction is clear, but surprisingly, the number of casualties announced by Israeli entities is very low compared to the mass destruction. This point clearly illustrates Iran’s fundamental approach to war ethics. At various stages of the 12-day war, Iran shows off new, somewhat unknown missiles each time, each with more destructive power than its previous ones, but the number of Israeli casualties was as low as possible. This approach not only demonstrates technical capabilities, but also demonstrates compliance with ethical principles at the height of conflict.
Israeli propaganda, along with the broader Hasbara machinery, has provided little visual evidence to support claims about attacks on hospitals and residential areas. Although an Iranian strike at the Wiseman Institute left the facility abandoned, the only images that circulate the damage to the hospital show that it is nothing more than a broken window or a collapsed ceiling panel. These are no traces of missile strikes. Rather, they represent flimsy falsehoods about hospital targeting.
This difference in this act extends beyond the battlefield to the realm of narrative and national recognition. Based on reality and ethics, Iran is trying to demonstrate the legitimacy of its actions. Meanwhile, its enemies rely on propaganda and manipulation of truth to justify inhumane operations and misalign them to Iran.
Another cultural element of Israel and its offensive and lawless ally, the United States, is fundamentally unable to grasp or interpret. They often misunderstand their existence as evidence of the so-called “death cult.” This interpretation is explicitly false and arises from a deep lack of cultural depth and historical awareness. The idea of martism is Islam and is deeply rooted in first-century Christian culture. Those who were killed in defending the teachings of Jesus in Nazareth were considered by anti-Jesus Jews and pagan Roman Empires to provide their deaths as documents, testimonies, affirming justice in the Christian path.
In Semitic languages such as Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic, the words “martist” (shahid) and “witness” (shahed) come from the roots of the same language. This is because martists are seen as not tragic victims but as bearers of the evidence presented in the courts of God. In this worldview, martial teaching is not the end, it is a testimony and beginning. It is the testimony of the truth of the road, and the beginning of different lives in spiritual and social aspects.
Martism does not come from a desire for death, but from a deep longing for life. Christian martyrs did not seek death. They sought Chayyim Tov – a life with good meaning. Despite this love for life, when your enemy imposes death on you, a conscious cultural calculation known as martianism emerges. At such moments, the continuation of individual lives is possible within the wider society organizations of survival and the pursuit of a good life. Individuals transfer all social capital to the community so that their lives and efforts to protect life through the collective spirit continue after the death of a lonely body.
This is not merely symbolic. In addition to its symbolism, it embodies important and functional dynamics. It could be likened to the donation of organs: By donating their organs, a person gives life to others and continues to exist within them. Similarly, martianism allows an individual’s life to flow into the body of society and its ideals.
The path of war in Iran is based on the concept of martianism itself. It is based on the reclaiming of individual lives lost to enemy savages through reintegration into social assemblies. This worldview dramatically reduces the fear of death, and at the same time amplifies hope for a good future life. This approach instills fearless spirit in Iranian fighters, allowing them to stand with unwavering resolve and deep faith towards their opponents, focusing solely on killing and destruction. This fundamental difference in the philosophy of war has more impact than the battlefield. It shapes social resilience and collective morale. A society that embraces martialism will respond to the destruction of trials and war with greater unity and endurance.
In short, in the war with Israel, Iran defended not only its territorial integrity and national security, but also culture, ethics, and a dignified, human-centric lifestyle. Iran has introduced a new war paradigm in the world. Ethics and humanity are those who hold their place even at the most intense moments of military conflict.
This mode of war conveys a clear message not only for Iran but for all humanity. Such an approach not only preserves human life, but also protects human dignity and noble values. This memo is an effort to shed light on the often overlooked dimension of this new approach to war, bringing a deeper reflection on the nature of war and peace in the modern world. It is a perspective that could inspire alternative approaches to global conflict that expands the path to a more just and humane future.