How Limiting Beliefs Affect Our Behavior (Lessons from the Recent Iran-Israel Conflict)
Our Actions Stem from Assumptions Based on Prior Experiences
In late 2023, the Middle East erupted into renewed conflict as Israel launched precision strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, a response to Iran-backed Hamas attacks on October 7 that killed hundreds. The escalation, now a five-day missile exchange, has polarized global opinion.
Some view Israel’s actions as a bold defense against a hostile regime pushing for nuclear weapons. Others see a risky gamble that could destabilize the region. This debate, recently echoed in a discussion between scholars John Mearsheimer and Yoram Hazony, reveals more than just foreign policy divides—it speaks to how deeply rooted beliefs drive action.
Listening to Mearsheimer’s caution and Hazony’s certainty, I saw a reflection of decisions in my own life. Times I hesitated, assuming failure. Times I pushed forward, convinced I'd succeed. Both were shaped by past experience, which narrowed what I believed was possible. Just like nations, individuals are guided—sometimes trapped—by untested assumptions.
Two Opposing Views on Israel’s Strategy Against Iran
The Mearsheimer-Hazony debate captures two sharply different views on Israel’s efforts to counter Iran—each view built on long-standing assumptions that frame what they see as possible or effective.
John Mearsheimer’s Stance
Mearsheimer, a realist, argues Israel’s strikes can’t succeed in permanently disabling Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s facilities are buried too deep. Even with massive U.S. bombs, any damage would be temporary. He points to the U.S. military’s record in Yemen and Iraq—conflicts that dragged on despite overwhelming power.
To Mearsheimer, containment and diplomacy, like the 2015 nuclear deal, are the only sustainable options. He sees escalation as a trap that could pull the U.S. into another prolonged war, when it should be focused on China.
His view rests on the belief that force doesn’t work against committed adversaries. That belief, shaped by watching years of U.S. failures, might blind him to more targeted or covert operations that shift momentum. It narrows his field of vision to diplomacy only—possibly too narrow for the situation.
Yoram Hazony’s Stance
Hazony, a conservative thinker, believes Israel can dismantle Iran’s nuclear and missile programs on its own. He views Iran as a clear existential threat and argues Israel’s decades of preparation—from Mossad operations to advanced tunneling—have already shown success. He sees Israel not only as capable but as key to regional stability, even without U.S. support.
Hazony assumes that military power, paired with resolve, is enough. That belief comes from Israel’s long history of surviving existential threats and prevailing. But it may cause him to downplay how resilient Iran’s defenses are—or how aggressive their retaliation could be. His confidence in Israel’s strength might close him off to options that include diplomacy or collaboration.
Analysis
Both thinkers lean hard on the lessons of their own histories. Mearsheimer expects failure because he’s seen it before. Hazony expects success because that’s been Israel’s pattern. These perspectives feel familiar: like us, they act based on what’s already happened—often without questioning whether it still applies.
How Limiting Beliefs Shape Our Behavior
What this debate really shows is something broader: limiting beliefs shape what we think is possible. When we stop challenging those beliefs, they quietly run the show.
Examples We All Recognize:
Career Paralysis: Sarah wants a tech job but avoids applying because she was once rejected from an internship. That belief—“I’m not good enough”—keeps her stuck. Like Mearsheimer, she sees only what failed before, not what could succeed now.
Social Guardrails: After getting burned by a friend, John assumes new people can’t be trusted. So he never lets anyone in. It’s the emotional version of Hazony’s self-reliance. His past pain becomes a lens that blocks connection.
Overconfidence in Health: Emma, newly inspired by a friend’s marathon, thinks she can do the same with little prep. She ignores her current fitness level. Her injury later on? A reminder that optimism needs to meet reality halfway.
Team Groupthink: After a failed product launch, a startup assumes they “just aren’t innovative.” They retreat. Then, in a burst of enthusiasm, they rush a new product—without testing. One belief created inaction. Another created blind overconfidence. Both stalled real progress.
How to Break the Cycle
Limiting beliefs don’t just appear—they build from patterns. Fail once, and it’s easy to assume you’ll always fail. But small actions can start to change that.
Test the belief. Apply for the job. Trust one new person with something small. Ease into training. Launch a pilot project.
That shift—from assumption to experiment—is where things start to open up.
Mearsheimer could benefit from analyzing Israel’s recent covert wins. Hazony might gain from assessing Iran’s willingness to negotiate. The point isn’t to trade one belief for another—it’s to stop treating old conclusions like facts.
Conclusion
Mearsheimer and Hazony aren’t just debating geopolitics. They’re showing us how belief systems become strategies—and how those beliefs can trap us.
Mearsheimer, stuck in past failures, leans too hard on diplomacy. Hazony, buoyed by past victories, overrelies on force. Both miss what lies between.
We do the same thing.
Whether it’s a relationship, career move, or health decision, we often act on outdated assumptions. We hold onto past narratives without checking whether they still apply.
Want to shift that? Start with one question:
“What belief is limiting me right now?”
Write it down. Test it in a small way. See what happens.
That’s how change starts. One assumption at a time. Just like in policy, progress depends on whether we’re willing to rethink what we think we know.