Iran's military posture in a widening conflict with Israel and the US suggests it is not fighting for victory in any conventional sense, but rather for survival on its own terms. The Islamic Republic's leaders and commanders have been preparing for this moment for years, understanding that their regional ambitions could eventually trigger a direct confrontation with Israel or the US, and that a war with one would almost certainly draw in the other. This pattern was evident in the 12-day war last summer, when Israel struck first and the US joined days later. In the current round of fighting, they launched strikes on Iran simultaneously.
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. Instead, Iran appears to have built a strategy around deterrence and endurance. It has invested heavily in layered ballistic missile capabilities, long-range drones, and a network of allied armed groups across the region over the past decade.
Iran understands its own limitations: US mainland territory is out of reach, but American bases across the region—specifically in neighboring Arab countries—are not. Israel also lies well within range of Iranian missiles and drones, and recent exchanges have demonstrated that its air defense systems can be penetrated. Each projectile that goes through those systems carries not just military but psychological weight.
Iran's calculus rests partly on the economics of war. Interceptors used by Israel and the US are much more expensive than many of the one-way drones and missiles deployed by Iran. Prolonged conflict forces the US and Israel to use up high-value assets to intercept comparatively low-cost threats, straining their resources.
Energy is another lever in the war economy. The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world's most critical chokepoints for oil and gas shipments. Iran does not need to close the narrow Gulf waterway entirely—even credible threats and limited disruptions have already pushed prices up and, if continued, may increase international pressure for de-escalation.
In this sense, escalation becomes a tool not necessarily to defeat Iran's opponents militarily but instead to raise the cost of continuing the war. Missile and drone strikes on states such as Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, and Iraq appear designed to signal that hosting US forces carries risks, potentially pressuring these governments to limit Washington's operations.
Reports that local commanders may be selecting targets or launching missiles with relative autonomy raise further questions. If accurate, this would not necessarily indicate the collapse of command structures. Iran's military doctrine, particularly within the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), has long incorporated decentralized elements to ensure continuity under heavy attack, as communication networks are vulnerable and senior commanders have been targeted.
Ultimately, Iran's approach appears to rest on a belief that it can absorb punishment longer than its adversaries are willing to sustain pain and costs. If this is the case, then it is a form of calculated escalation: endure, retaliate, avoid total collapse, and wait for political fractures to emerge on the other side.
Yet endurance has limits. Missile stockpiles are limited and production lines... [trimmed for token optimization]
Source: www.bbc.com