Strategic decisions are often shaped by a gap between objective reality and decision-makers’ perceptions. When these perceptions replace reliable data, strategic miscalculation can distort risk assessment, constrain national choices, encourage passivity, and lead to disproportionate risks or more aggressive actions by adversaries.
Five Dimensions of Strategic Credibility
Strategic credibility is not determined solely by material or military resources, but by the interaction of five key dimensions, identified through qualitative interviews with 11 experts in strategy, security, and cognitive sciences.
Strategic credibility is based on five key dimensions:
- Capability – ability to turn resources into effective action.
- Will – readiness to act and bear costs.
- Consistency – alignment between words, decisions, and actions.
- Communication – clear and credible strategic signaling.
- Cohesion – institutional coordination and social support.
Nine Strategic Miscalculation Scenarios
A 3×3 matrix comparing perceived and actual strength produces nine scenarios, ranging from mutual underestimation to strategic perceptual balance. The most dangerous is Pessimistic Divergence, where the country is underestimated and the enemy overestimated.
Empirical Assessment
A survey of 53 participants—16 senior decision-makers/advisors and 37 independent experts—measured the strategic credibility of the country and the United States. The results placed the current situation decisively in Scenario 2: Pessimistic Divergence.
- Expert reference: Country 67.62/100 | U.S. 68.28/100
- Decision-makers’ perception: Country 44.20/100 | U.S. 77.93/100
- Perceptual gap: −23.42 for the country vs. +9.65 for the U.S.
- Overall asymmetry: −33.73 points in favor of the U.S.
The largest domestic underestimations concerned will (−24.46) and consistency (−24.38), indicating significant doubts about the country’s ability to sustain responses, defend red lines, and maintain coherence between words and actions.
Strategies for Addressing the Scenario
- Demonstrate real capabilities: Turn potential capabilities into visible, measurable, and repeatable actions.
- Clarify and defend red lines: Define limited vital interests and establish a credible record of defending them.
- Remove unrealistic commitments: Eliminate unsupported commitments and ensure consistency between promises and actions.
- Strengthen strategic communication: Deliver clear, evidence-based messages and reduce contradictory signals.
- Build shared assessments and cohesion: Create a common strategic picture across institutions and strengthen public trust.
This study is conducted at Maha Management Innovation Center by Hamidreza Tafaghodi in 2026.
To read more, download full paper
