By Virginia Contreras, Attorney, Specialist in Security and Defense
When the West looks at Iran, the tendency is to reduce it to an aggressive and dangerous actor, capable of launching missiles or mobilizing militias in the Middle East. The media presents it as an abstract enemy; political speeches label it as an “axis of evil”; and leaders often speak of containment, sanctions, or “preventive actions.” However, this simplified view ignores the essential reality: what is happening today in the Gulf is not a mere military confrontation, but a complex engagement that combines strategic calculation, historical memory, religious doctrine, and regional power projection.
Iran is not an Arab state, but a state-civilization with Persian roots, inheriting over two millennia of imperial history, with a political and cultural identity that explains its resilience under external pressures. The Twelver Shi’a religion is a central component of its power structure: martyrdom and vengeance are not mere symbols but active principles that legitimize state action and guide the behavior of leadership and society. Unlike the Western conception, vengeance is understood as a moral, political, and structural obligation: any attack on key state figures requires a coordinated and proportional response.
Start of the Conflict
On February 28, 2026, an open conflict began when Israel carried out an airstrike that destroyed the Ayatollah’s residence and eliminated part of the Islamic Republic’s strategic high command. The Ayatollah died, remaining faithful to his decision not to take refuge in a bunker despite external threats, which, in the Shi’a worldview, reinforces the doctrine of martyrdom.
This action was not only a military blow but also directly impacted the legitimacy of Iran’s political-religious system, prompting an immediate and coordinated response.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Quds Force launched attacks against U.S. and allied military bases in Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Israel, demonstrating a combination of precision, dispersion, and saturation characteristic of their operational doctrine. Each action reflects a logic of institutionalized vengeance and projects a message of resistance that strengthens internal cohesion and warns adversaries and allies about Tehran’s strategic determination.
U.S. Decision-Making Context and Perception
It is undeniable that the United States and Israel possess technological superiority. However, the conflict is not fought solely on the military plane. Modern warfare combines perception, politics, and strategic influence. So far, Iran has managed to project resilience and sustained offensive capability, generating the international impression that it maintains the initiative. This phenomenon recalls the U.S. experience in Vietnam: military superiority does not always translate into perceived victory.
Before the outbreak of the conflict, Lieutenant General Dan Caine, Chief of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and the president’s principal military advisor, internally warned about the Pentagon’s limited ammunition reserves—including short- and medium-range missiles, precision bombs, artillery, and air defense systems—after sustained support to Israel and Ukraine. These warnings, reported by U.S. media, were later publicly denied by President Donald Trump, raising questions about the level of preparedness and strategic coherence.
At the same time, statements by Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggesting that the war’s initiation responded to Israeli decisions caused discomfort among both Democrats and Republicans, reigniting constitutional debate over the executive’s authority to initiate military actions without explicit congressional authorization.
Trump also offered what he called “full immunity” to Iranian forces if they laid down their arms. Beyond its rhetorical value, the proposal lacks real feasibility within Iran’s ideological and doctrinal framework.
All of this occurs in a particularly sensitive domestic political context: allegations related to Jeffrey Epstein—a businessman convicted of sexual offenses against minors, whose file, made public in Congress, repeatedly mentions political and business figures, including President Trump; declining presidential approval ratings; high prices for basic necessities following trade tariffs recently declared illegal by the Supreme Court; and strong controversies over immigration and deportation policies.
This scenario unfolds just months before the midterm elections for Congress, which could shift the internal balance of power and fully reactivate the “checks and balances” system, practically suspended since the start of the president’s second term, with the eventual possibility of an impeachment process. In consolidated democracies, internal legitimacy directly conditions the freedom of strategic action abroad.
Defense Strategy and Conflict Projection
Iran faces a strategic dilemma: how to respond decisively without exposing itself to total destruction, while preserving the credibility of its leadership and internal cohesion. Its strategy combines limited conventional defense, asymmetric warfare, and regional projection, aimed at turning apparent vulnerability into a long-term attrition advantage.
1. Defense and Resilience
Iran lacks the capacity to conventionally defeat the United States or Israel in a prolonged frontal confrontation. Its air defense systems, though sophisticated, cannot guarantee sustained neutralization of high-precision attacks. Therefore, defense is organized in layers:
- Protection of critical infrastructure through dispersion, redundancy, and camouflage, especially at nuclear facilities and command centers.
- Rapid mobilization of the Revolutionary Guard and allied forces in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen.
- Systematic use of medium-range ballistic missiles and drones launched from multiple platforms, aiming to saturate enemy defenses and maintain constant pressure on strategic bases and ports, including the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain.
2. Attrition Strategy
Iran’s approach seeks to prolong the conflict and exploit structural vulnerabilities:
- Western air defense systems require maintenance, constant interceptor replenishment, and complex logistics chains.
- Strangulation of the Strait of Hormuz affects not only regional economies but also the global energy market.
- Prolonging the conflict turns Western technological superiority into a costly and politically sensitive factor.
3. Regional Projection
Iran expands the operational theater through indirect networks:
1. Militias and allies in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen open multiple fronts and disperse adversary response capabilities.
2. The narrative of martyrdom and vengeance consolidates internal legitimacy, even in scenarios of economic deprivation.
3. The reputation for resistance strengthens its position in future strategic negotiations.
Technology and Defense
In Israel, the missile defense system known as the “Iron Dome” faces unprecedented saturation. Although it maintains an estimated interception rate between 85% and 90%, the volume and simultaneity of missile and drone attacks exceed its immediate response capacity, generating public perception of inefficiency.
U.S. officials have acknowledged that Iran produces approximately one hundred missiles monthly, while U.S. interceptor production remains significantly below that rate—between six and seven units per month—introducing a relevant imbalance in a prolonged attrition strategy. This industrial asymmetry introduces a critical component in any extended conflict: war ceases to be solely technological and depends on sustained production and replenishment capacity.
Economy and Global Security
The conflict has a structural economic dimension. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil passes. At the same time, Yemen’s Houthis—Iranian allies—exercise influence over Bab al-Mandab, a strategic point connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean.
If both routes remain blocked or subject to interruptions, the flow of oil, gas, food, medicine, and industrial goods could be affected, generating inflationary pressures and potential regional humanitarian crises.
Initial impacts are already observable: on March 3, the price of gas in the United Kingdom reached record levels because Qatar, its main supplier, could not export to Europe through Hormuz. The stock markets of South Korea and Japan declined, reflecting their energy vulnerability. Even China, the main buyer of Iranian oil, has requested that the passage remain open, aware that sustained disruption would affect its industrial production and foreign trade.
The economic dimension confirms that this war transcends the military: it affects supply chains, financial markets, and global political stability.
Hypotheses for Conflict Evolution
Several scenarios can be contemplated:
- Prolonged attrition conflict with recurrent high-tension episodes: The confrontation could stabilize in a dynamic of limited attacks, calibrated reprisals, and sustained pressure on critical infrastructure, without either side seeking immediate total war.
- Limited regional escalation through indirect interventions: Allied actors on both sides—state or non-state—could become involved sporadically, expanding the operational theater without formalizing open war between major powers.
- Reorientation of Iran’s nuclear policy for deterrent purposes: Perceiving vulnerability, Tehran could accelerate or redefine its nuclear strategy as a structural deterrent mechanism, significantly altering the regional strategic balance.
- Global economic pressure prompting international mediation before open large-scale war: Sustained impact on energy markets and supply chains could generate external incentives—mainly from Asian and European powers—to force negotiation channels.
Conclusions
- A multidimensional confrontation: The conflict integrates military strategy, historical identity, religious doctrine, and competition for international narrative.
- The Western challenge: Technological superiority does not guarantee absolute control when the adversary operates with mobility, dispersion, and prolonged resistance.
- Systemic economic impact: The Strait of Hormuz turns any escalation into an immediate risk for the global economy.
- Attrition scenario: Current characteristics point to a prolonged conflict with sustained pressure on critical infrastructure.
- Centrality of perception: In contemporary warfare, narrative, political legitimacy, and internal cohesion can be as decisive as military capability.
In conflicts of this nature, the critical variable is not only the capacity to destroy but the ability to sustain—politically, economically, and psychologically—a prolonged war.
Comment here