Rethinking the Unknowns
A Cultural Reframing of Strategic Uncertainty
When global conflicts erupt, governments and institutions often turn to frameworks to make sense of uncertainty. One of the most widely cited models is the Known and Unknown Matrix, made popular during the early 2000s in the lead-up to the Iraq War. This model divides knowledge into four quadrants: known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns, and unknown knowns. It is often presented as a tool for strategic decision-making under uncertainty. But what is frequently forgotten is that this model borrows its conceptual scaffolding from an earlier psychological tool: the Johari Window. Originally designed to explore self-awareness and interpersonal understanding, the Johari Window offers more than a classification of knowledge, it suggests that perception, identity, and relational dynamics shape what we know and how we know it.
Reclaiming this origin is not a minor historical footnote. It reveals a deeper truth: knowledge is never neutral. What we perceive as certainty is often constructed through specific lenses of power, fear, and ideology. The Known and Unknown Matrix, as used to justify the Iraq invasion, emphasized data gaps as latent threats. Intelligence agencies treated the absence of definitive proof of weapons of mass destruction as a cause for alarm. But this interpretation bypassed cultural nuance, ignored political agendas, and overlooked interpretive errors. The matrix reduced intelligence to risk calculus, treating unknowns as voids to be filled rather than as signals demanding deeper inquiry. What it failed to acknowledge is what the Johari Window brings into focus: the blind spots created by our own assumptions.
In the aftermath of the recent strike on Iran, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared, “Thanks to President Trump’s bold and visionary leadership and his commitment to peace through strength, Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.” This statement exemplifies a particular narrative frame rooted in declarative certainty, strategic finality, and political spectacle. It reflects a worldview that equates military action with resolution, and strength with clarity. But within the interpretive framework we've explored, particularly through the Johari Window, such statements reveal more about the speaker's position in the blind quadrant than about conditions on the ground. Hegseth’s framing bypasses the symbolic, cultural, and epistemic dimensions of the conflict, treating Iranian ambition as a fixed target rather than a fluid construct shaped by identity, memory, and historical trauma. In that sense, the quote is not in alignment with the podcast’s orientation toward complexity. It illustrates the very kind of narrative closure we caution against, where meaning is reduced to performance, and unknowns are prematurely declared resolved.
Fast forward to the present, and similar dynamics are at play in the analysis of Iran. Conventional intelligence might describe Iran’s nuclear intentions as a known unknown. But what about the internal narratives shaped by historical trauma, the symbolism of martyrdom, or the psychological legacy of Western intervention? These are not unknowable. They are simply misrecognized or dismissed. Within the Johari framework, they reside in the blind and unknown quadrants because prevailing frameworks are not equipped to perceive them. The challenge is not data collection, but interpretive capacity.
But let’s not overlook one of the most critical dynamics in this entire process: the formulation of the intelligence question itself. What we ask of intelligence systems frames not only what answers we receive, but also how we justify action. The question isn’t simply, “What is Iran doing?” It is “Should we be afraid?” “Is this the moment to strike?” “Can we afford to wait?” These are not neutral inquiries; they are charged with urgency, fear, politics, and performance. And those who pose the questions, whether in intelligence agencies, policy circles, or media narratives, carry their own blind spots. Bias is not just in the data; it’s in the very architecture of inquiry. When the intelligence community frames its assessments through a militarized or adversarial lens, it narrows the field of perception. It creates a gravitational pull toward confirming threat, rather than understanding complexity. As with the recent strike on Iran, we saw how a question subtly shaped by distrust, “Are they stonewalling us to buy time for a bomb?” can cascade into irreversible consequences. The Johari Window reminds us: the framing of the unknown is never neutral. It reflects the worldview of the asker as much as the behavior of the observed.
Rather than continue relying on tools that flatten meaning into metrics, we should return to and expand the original Johari Window. When coupled with red teaming, scenario planning, and cultural semiotics, the Johari Window becomes more than a diagnostic mirror, it becomes a method for cultural insight. It recognizes that understanding emerges through orientation, not just observation.
The intelligence failure of Iraq was not just about absent evidence, it was about a failure of imagination. It was a failure to imagine that absence of evidence wasn’t evidence of deception, but possibly a lack of evidence. It was a failure to imagine that behavior interpreted as concealment might stem from trauma or sovereignty, not aggression. It was a failure to imagine that different societies process fear, identity, and authority through narratives we were not attuned to. Similarly, with Iran, the greatest risk is not what we don’t know, but what we think we’ve already understood. Cultural frameworks, emotional histories, and narrative identities are not background noise, they are central to behavior. To interpret them requires a shift from data extraction to cultural engagement.
The unknown is not a vacuum. It is a space of meaning, emotion, and symbolic weight. When we acknowledge this, we stop asking intelligence systems merely to detect threats and begin to ask how those systems might perceive differently. The key is not in filling gaps, but in framing better questions, ones that allow complexity to surface rather than be filtered out.
Related Reading