In analyzing foreign policy, the focus is usually on instruments: military power, economic levers, alliances, and diplomatic pressure. However, a less visible yet decisive variable is the “mind of the decision-maker.” How a political leader sees the world, what they highlight, and what they ignore can alter the course of a crisis.

In confronting Iran, Trump’s behaviors and positions can be analyzed not only within the framework of political calculations, but also in light of several key cognitive biases; biases that, in a synergistic manner, have led to “strategic error” and deprived the U.S. president of the possibility of a rational and sound design.

1. False confidence; when complexity is ignored

One of the most prominent patterns is Overconfidence Bias; that is, overestimating one’s ability to control a complex situation. Within this framework, the “maximum pressure” policy is seen not as one tool among other options, but as the main solution; as if a multilayered political-social system can be forced to change with a single lever. This type of view usually underestimates cultural and historical complexities and networks of social resistance, and this is the first step toward miscalculation.

Lack of attention to and understanding of the complexities of Iranian society, misunderstanding of indigenous culture, and the values and attitudes of Iranians have led to Trump’s highly erroneous behaviors and decisions.

2. Confirmation bias; an echo chamber at the decision-making level

Confirmation Bias occurs when the decision-maker only sees data that reinforces their mental narrative.

In this situation, analyses that speak of the “resilience” or “multilayered nature” of the target society are either sidelined or not seen at all—an issue that is strongly true regarding Trump’s understanding of Iranian society.

The result of this error is the formation of an “echo chamber” at the policymaking level; a place where the decision-maker hears a reflection of their own beliefs rather than the reality on the ground, leading to the emergence of such a crisis. Trump and the decision-making circle in the White House assumed that, with the events of January, Iranian society had shifted and that the possibility of military intervention and regime change had been created. In my view, another side of this cognitive error was the naive attention to the behaviors of the Iranian diaspora, which conveyed this mistaken perception to the U.S. and its policymaking circle.

3. Excessive simplification; reducing a complex reality to a single-variable issue

In many statements and decisions, signs of Simplification Bias can be seen; that is, reducing a complex phenomenon to a few limited variables, in which the economic variable usually appears to be the most important.

Within such a framework, Iran is reduced to a “problem solvable through military and economic pressure.” But this reduction removes identity-based, historical, regional, and even psychological variables of society from the equation; variables that become more active precisely in times of crisis and war. Underestimating a complex issue like war and the illusion of easily managing this file have created a dire situation for the U.S. president.

4. Stereotypical imaging of Iran; perceptual error in understanding Iran’s structure

Enemy Image Bias caused Trump to see Iran not as a complex actor, but as a simple, uniform, and often exaggerated image. This type of imaging reduces the ability to analyze unexpected behaviors. Misperception of Iran’s governing institutions and the assumption of system collapse by removing leaders and military commanders showed that the cognitive error of the White House leadership regarding Iran is very serious and deep.

What makes these patterns dangerous is not the existence of each one alone, but their overlap:

False confidence + confirmation bias + simplification + stereotypical imaging

This combination creates a “closed perceptual framework”; a framework in which reality is interpreted not as it is, but as the decision-maker wants to see it. In a symbolic metaphor, Trump delivers speeches, negotiates, commands, and wins in a closed room in front of a full-length mirror, and this vicious cycle is repeated again and again. In such conditions, the error is no longer merely in “execution”; rather, it begins from “perception,” and this is precisely the point where its costs increasingly push this administration toward the brink of failure.

By Seyed Ahmad Mousavi Samadi, Researcher and university lecturer