Backdrop

President Trump unilaterally postponed strikes on power infrastructure in Iran, a threat/ultimatum he gave for opening the Strait of Hormuz, citing “Good and Productive Conversation,” which Iran denied. It seems Iranian resilience, counter-threats, and counter-strikes like Dimona have brought a TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) moment for him. Whether the war is heading towards de-escalation or Trump is buying time for bigger action remains uncertain.

Four weeks into the coordinated US-Israeli air campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran, a clear strategic lesson emerges for students of modern warfare: tactical air superiority cannot substitute for a viable political end-state. Operations “Epic Fury” and “Rising Lion” have showcased the coalition’s ability to inflict high-intensity degradation, yet they have not led to the expected systemic collapse in Tehran. The coalition now faces the hard limits of standoff power when used against a state prepared for prolonged “Strategic Endurance” and “Asymmetric Defiance.”

A Clash of Strategic Cultures

The ongoing conflict is not a conventional war of attrition but a clash of strategic cultures. Iran uses a “Mosaic Defense” that is intended to use geographic depth, terrain friction, and international economic interdependencies as long-lasting levers of deterrence, while the coalition uses “Shock and Awe” through integrated multi-domain operations and technological superiority.

Strategic Miscalculation: Maximalist Goals vs. Realistic Results

The US-Israeli campaign is predicated on a strategic miscalculation: the idea that domestic regime change could be sparked by overwhelming military force. This “maximalist” strategy, which calls for the “unconditional surrender” of a regional power, ignores past examples like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, where the capacity to destroy targets did not equate to the capacity to maintain peace.

The Strategic Vacuum of the JCPoA Withdrawal

The roots of this confrontation trace back to the 2018 unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA). By abandoning a multilateral framework that provided verification and restraint, Washington created a strategic vacuum. The expectation was that “Maximum Pressure” would produce a “better deal” addressing Iran’s ballistic missile programs and regional proxy networks. However, without a credible diplomatic off-ramp, the progression from economic sanctions to military strikes became inevitable and flawed. It’s true that diplomacy without the credible threat of force is weak, but force without a diplomatic objective is aimless.

Domestic Drivers and the “Maduro Fallacy”

In the context of a sequel to military action, it is essential to scrutinize the domestic motivations of the Trump and Netanyahu administrations. Both have sought to use military “victories” to offset internal political volatility—ranging from Epstein files and tariff controversies in the US to legal and political challenges in Israel. There was a clear hope that eliminating top Iranian leaders would galvanize public opinion against the clerical regime. They seem to have fallen into the “Maduro Fallacy”—assuming that tactics used in Venezuela could be replicated in a country with four times the territory of Iraq and a much deeper ideological and military infrastructure.

The Intelligence Gap

The justification for “imminent threat” proved intellectually thin. Key US officials, including Joe Kent and Intelligence Chief Tulsi Gabbard, previously indicated that Iran posed no immediate ICBM threat to the American mainland. This suggests that the strikes are less about immediate defense and more about broader strategic objectives: disrupting Chinese energy lifelines and preserving the dominance of the petrodollar against emerging Eurasian alternatives.

Operational Art: Iran’s “Mosaic Defense” and Strategic Endurance

In analyzing Iranian operational art, it is evident that Tehran has avoided conventional “force-on-force” engagements in favor of a decentralized, asymmetric model, central to which is the Mosaic Defense, a strategy that focuses on decentralizing power across local commanders and ensuring that forces can continue operating based on broad guidelines, even if top leadership is eliminated. The IRGC had previously assigned some successors to important positions and transferred control down the ranks. Despite the top hierarchy’s removal, missile strikes, drone swarms, marine disruption, and proxy operations have persisted.

As conventional ammunition stocks dwindle and military capabilities get degraded, Iran may transition to asymmetric war: shifting to “harassing fire”—rationing drones and missiles to launch sporadic, unpredictable attacks that keep adversaries engaged at a very heavy cost and disrupt commerce for prolonged periods.

Using Terrain Friction as a Force Multiplier

Iran’s most effective deterrent is its ability to shut the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital to the global energy supply. By threatening 20% of the world’s oil supply, Tehran has imposed a “global inflationary tax.” This represents a masterclass in hybrid warfare; Iran is not just confronting the US Navy but also the US economy. The resulting volatility in energy prices and shipping insurance feeds directly into the American domestic political landscape, increasing pressure on President Trump through the inflation he promised to control.

Strategic Friction: The Human and Material Calculus

The coalition’s dependence on standoff airpower has reached the point of diminishing returns. While nuclear-related sites and IRGC naval bases have been targeted, breaking the national will has proved elusive.

The Unintended Unifier

Military science teaches us to identify the “center of gravity.” The coalition assumed this was the regime, but collateral damage—such as the tragic deaths of schoolgirls in Minab and destruction of energy hubs like the South Pars Gas Field—shifted the center of gravity to the Iranian people’s sense of national sovereignty. A collective resolve to resist external, unjustified offensiveness has momentarily eclipsed internal disgruntlement against the Khomeini regime.

The Obliteration Myth

Iran’s tactical defiance is still strong despite severe military and infrastructural degradation. The shooting down of an F-35 and missile strikes reaching Diego Garcia in the fourth week of war have shattered the coalition’s aura of invincibility. As long as Iran maintains its “missile cities” hidden in mountain tunnels, it cannot be “obliterated” by airpower alone. Achieving a definitive victory would require a costly ground invasion—a “boots on the ground” scenario that neither Washington nor Tel Aviv is prepared to pursue.

Resilient Leadership: The Emergence of the “Revenge Doctrine”

The new Supreme Leader, Mustafa Khamenei, represents a shift toward a more radicalized and defiant posture. Having lost his father, wife, and children in enemy strikes, he is viewed as a leader without the “fear of death” and reinforces a doctrine of revenge and regime survival. All new leaders seem more hardened than those killed.

Geopolitical Realignment: The Eurasian Pivot

The battle is accelerating a fundamental shift in the global order, bringing the world closer to a “multipolar reality.”

Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran now engage in strategic coordination in addition to intelligence sharing. Rising oil prices and the diversion of Western resources benefit Russia, which improves its own standing in Ukraine. In the meantime, China watches as the United States, its main adversary, depletes military capacity, munitions, and morale in the Middle East, depriving it of its power projection capability in the Indo-Pacific, losing out in long-term “Big Power Contestation.”

The Indian Strategic Calculations

The uncompromisable energy dependence of India on the Persian Gulf makes this conflict a direct threat to our national interests.

Energy Security: Because India depends on Gulf gas and oil, disruptions at Hormuz affect the country’s budget deficit and drive up domestic prices. This crisis highlights accelerating greater diversification of our sources of gas and oil globally.

Diaspora: Since over nine million Indians in the Gulf rely heavily on their remittances to maintain our economy, it is imperative that they be protected.

Strategic Autonomy: With events like the strike on Bandar Anjali, connectivity projects like the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and the Chabahar Port—our entry point to Central Asia—face existential uncertainty. India’s exercise of “strategic autonomy” and multilateral engagements found itself in a slightly better position than many others in navigating this economic and energy crisis so far, vindicating its long-term diplomatic strategy.

Emerging Scenarios

The war was started by the U.S. and Israel, and they retain the initiative to spiral future scenarios. Two most likely scenarios seem to be realistic.

The “Declared Victory” Exit: President Trump could unilaterally declare that coalition objectives have been achieved and create a scenario of meaningful talks and find an exit with compromises. His five-day pause on strikes on the power grid could well be a precursor to it. By claiming a “mission accomplished” moment, he may withdraw to stabilize energy markets. However, this would leave a militarily weakened but ideologically hardened Iran, convinced that only a nuclear deterrent guarantees survival, claiming victory over a superpower, and putting up unrealistic demands for negotiations.

Extended Regional Conflict: President Trump could use the declared pause to build up for limited ground action, like limited ground actions on Iranian islands like Kharg or the Strait of Hormuz coastline. This could result in a dangerous escalation of tit-for-tat strikes on nuclear establishments and water salination plants, with catastrophic consequences and an extended regional campaign involving the “Axis of Resistance” (Hezbollah, Houthis, and militias). In this case, oil prices may shoot above $140 per barrel for a long time, which would be disastrous for the world economy.

The future trajectory and end state of war, therefore, remain uncertain.

Conclusion: Strategic Lessons

A hard reality is exposed by the Iran-Trump conflict: technological dominance and operational skill cannot take the place of well-defined political objectives. Although the US and Israel have demonstrated their ability to destroy targets at will, they will continue to struggle to achieve their unrealistic aims, like Iranian surrender or dictating regime selection to a sovereign country, not to enrich uranium or not to have missiles for its defense. So far Iran has shown that asymmetric military superiority alone can’t capitulate a determined nation.

The use of geographic configurations like the Strait of Hormuz as strategic leverage in a war has been well demonstrated by Iran, with a lesson for India to plan contingencies for the Malacca Strait in our national interest in combat scenarios.

The most crucial strategic lesson is that military force must always be employed to achieve a clear, viable political objective. Without an “exit strategy” or a “diplomatic end-state,” the alliance could win a tactical battle but lose the strategic fight for regional dominance and “big power contestation.”