Iran has been attacked once again by Israel and the US, ostensibly to finish what they started in June 2025. Iran was the last of the bulwarks in the axis of resistance to Israel and, in many ways, the soul behind the resistance to Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.
Israel’s fears about Iran emanated from Iranian nuclear ambitions, a panoply of missile systems, and its proclivity to support the anti-Israel proxies. One of the best ways to keep the nuclear genie stillborn for Iran was to seek assurances through a deal like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which former US president Obama clinched.
The second insurance against nuclear proliferation by Iran was the fatwa given by Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei barring Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. The Iranian umbrage at the sanctions regime was betokened as a defiance of JCPOA, however, and the agreement was scrapped by the USA.
The abrogation of the JCPOA agreement was an egregious fault as it removed the strictures on Iranians to comply with one of the most intrusive nuclear inspection regimes in the world. Iranians were also subjected earlier to a cyber sabotage to damage their uranium enrichment capacity in the Natanz fuel enrichment facility. Iranians, having been cast away as nuclear pariahs, were subjected to a most restrictive sanctions regime, which increased their frustration as well as defiance.
News that Iran could enrich uranium to 60 per cent alarmed Israel’s leadership. Israeli leaders began coordinating with the US to stop Iran from enriching uranium beyond the previously agreed level of 3.67 per cent. A series of developments helped speed up Israel’s push to curb Iran’s capabilities. These included the rise to power of right-wing leaders in Israel under Netanyahu and the return of President Trump to office in Washington. At the same time, the weakening of the global rules-based order and the UN’s failure to prevent powerful countries from acting against weaker ones created both a precedent and an incentive for major powers to act unilaterally.
The Gaza genocide also highlighted the failure of the UN-based system. The Netanyahu government had the self-serving objective of prolonging the Gaza conflict and striking Iran to delay elections and a possible indictment on corruption charges. A forever-war scenario, therefore, suited Netanyahu. To achieve that end, the US was pressured to plan an offensive against Iranian nuclear and missile facilities, even as Iran-US talks were making good progress, with expectations of a mutually acceptable agreement in the next round of talks in Vienna.
The failure of coercion, with the deployment of a massive armada, surprised the US president, who had hoped for Iranian capitulation without a messy war. Israel and the US commenced air and missile attacks on Iran on March 1, eliminating the top Iranian leadership, including Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei and heads of the IRGC and army, in surprise attacks without UN sanction, drawing condemnation from P5 nations and the wider international community.
Iranians also possess Shayad UCAVs, a low-cost option (about $30,000 per piece) compared to US air defence interceptors such as the Patriot, which cost roughly $4 million each. US Secretary of War and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine has claimed complete air supremacy and a shift from a “standoff” to a “stand-in” targeting strategy, implying the use of non-smart gravity bombs. Some analysts suggest a depletion of the US arsenal of smart munitions, including cruise missiles and JDAMs, which has led the US president to personally call for a ramp-up in domestic smart munition production.
The US was dragged into the war by Netanyahu, leaving no clear strategy to bring Iran to heel. With boots-on-the-ground ruled out, an air and missile campaign alone is insufficient to achieve war objectives. According to Professor Mearsheimer, the US has entered the war without an exit strategy. If regime change is the goal, there is no countervailing force on the ground in Iran capable of achieving it. Instead, the air and missile campaign has hardened the IRGC’s resolve, rallying Iranian nationalism behind the leadership.
The option of balkanisation also appears unrealistic, as neither the Kurds nor other peripheral ethnic groups such as Baloch, Arabs and Azeris have demonstrated the capacity to challenge the IRGC or the Iranian Army. According to Ivan Arreguin-Toft’s theory of strategic interaction in asymmetric conflicts, a foe employing an indirect strategy with a stronger will often prevails.
A protracted war may serve Israeli interests, with Netanyahu hoping to bolster his electoral prospects, but it does not necessarily serve US interests. The question remains whether the US will attempt to end the war after weakening Iran enough to push it back to negotiations, and whether Iran would accept such a deal.
The above appears to be the most feasible option for the US to get out of an operational cul-de-sac, given the last hundred-year history of modern warfare, which confirms that no war against a determined foe has ever been won conclusively through air and missile firepower alone.
The writer is a security and defence analyst. He can be reached at: [email protected]
