Ask Onix
Iran's unconventional war calculus
Tehran's military posture in its escalating conflict with Israel and the U.S. centers on endurance rather than traditional battlefield success, analysts say. Iranian leaders have long anticipated a direct confrontation and structured their defenses accordingly.
Deterrence through layered capabilities
Over the past decade, Iran has invested in ballistic missiles, long-range drones, and a network of allied militias across the Middle East. These assets are designed to offset the technological and intelligence advantages held by Israel and the U.S. Recent exchanges have shown that Iranian projectiles can penetrate advanced air defense systems, delivering both military and psychological impact.
Iranian strategists acknowledge their limitations-U.S. mainland territory remains out of reach, but American bases in neighboring Arab states and Israel itself lie within striking distance. The economic imbalance of the conflict also plays a role: Iranian drones and missiles are far cheaper than the interceptors used by Israel and the U.S., making prolonged engagement costly for their adversaries.
Economic leverage and regional pressure
The Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global energy shipments, remains a key pressure point. Iran does not need to fully block the waterway to disrupt markets-even credible threats have already driven up oil prices, potentially increasing international calls for de-escalation.
Attacks on neighboring countries like Qatar, the UAE, and Iraq appear calculated to signal the risks of hosting U.S. forces. Tehran may hope these governments will push Washington to reduce operations, but expanding strikes could backfire by pushing these states closer to the U.S.-Israel alliance.
Decentralized command and risks of miscalculation
Reports suggest Iranian commanders may operate with significant autonomy, particularly within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). This decentralized structure, designed to ensure continuity under attack, could explain how Iranian forces have maintained operations despite the loss of senior leaders, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in initial U.S.-Israeli strikes.
However, decentralization carries dangers. Local commanders acting on incomplete information may hit unintended targets, increasing the risk of miscalculation. Prolonged autonomy could also erode centralized command and control.
Endurance as a strategy
Iran's approach hinges on the belief that it can outlast its adversaries' willingness to sustain costs. The strategy relies on absorbing punishment, retaliating selectively, and avoiding total collapse while waiting for political fractures to emerge on the opposing side.
Yet endurance has limits. Missile stockpiles are finite, production lines face constant attacks, and mobile launchers are vulnerable. Israel, meanwhile, grapples with public anxiety over air defense breaches, while the U.S. must balance regional escalation, energy market volatility, and financial strain.
Both sides assume time is on their side. Only one can be correct.
The survival imperative
For Iran, victory is not the goal-remaining standing is. Whether this objective is achievable without permanently alienating its neighbors remains uncertain.
