Iran’s high-risk war strategy seems to centre on endurance and deterrence
Iran’s high-risk war strategy seems to centre on endurance and deterrence
Iran’s military approach in the growing conflict with Israel and the United States implies a focus on survival rather than conventional military success. The Islamic Republic’s leaders and military planners have long anticipated this scenario, understanding that their regional ambitions could lead to a direct clash with either Israel or the US, with the other likely joining in. This dynamic was clear during the 12-day war earlier this year, where Israel initiated attacks and the US responded shortly after. Now, the situation has reversed, with Iran launching strikes on both sides simultaneously.
Strategic Investments and Limitations
Over the past decade, Iran has significantly bolstered its arsenal with layered ballistic missile systems, long-range drones, and a network of allied militant groups across the Middle East. These assets reflect a deliberate shift toward a strategy of endurance and deterrence, rather than outright conquest. While Iran lacks the technological edge of its opponents, it has compensated by leveraging its ability to sustain prolonged conflict. American bases in nearby Arab nations are within reach, as are Israeli targets, which recent attacks have shown can be effectively engaged.
Iran’s calculations also hinge on the economics of war. The cost of intercepting Iranian projectiles far exceeds the expense of the one-way missiles and drones they deploy. This disparity allows Tehran to maintain pressure without overextending its resources. Additionally, the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for global oil and gas exports, is a strategic asset. Even partial disruption of this chokepoint can elevate energy prices and intensify international calls for de-escalation.
Expanding the Conflict’s Reach
Missile and drone strikes targeting neutral states such as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, and Iraq are designed to convey a message: supporting US forces involves risks. Tehran hopes these actions will encourage regional allies to demand limits on Western operations. However, this tactic carries significant risks. Further attacks might solidify the alignment of these nations with the US and Israel, potentially isolating Iran in the long term.
Iran’s strategy is shaped by a delicate balance. While survival is the primary goal, restraint might be perceived as weakness. Reports suggest local commanders could act with relative autonomy, selecting targets without centralized oversight. This decentralized model, central to the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), ensures operational continuity even under heavy attacks. It also accounts for the loss of key figures, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in the opening strikes.
Given the technological superiority, intelligence capabilities and advanced military hardware of the US and Israel, it would be naive to think Iranian strategists were planning for a straightforward battlefield victory.
Risks of Decentralization
Decentralized command structures, while advantageous in maintaining operations during strikes, introduce potential vulnerabilities. Local commanders acting with incomplete data might target unintended adversaries, including states that have sought to remain neutral. The absence of a unified strategic vision increases the chance of miscalculations. If this trend persists, it could ultimately undermine Iran’s ability to coordinate and control its military efforts, challenging the resilience of its overall approach.