The question of victory in the escalating conflict surrounding Iran is deceptively simple, often answered with declarations of eliminating its nuclear program or dismantling its regional influence. Yet, this narrative, prevalent in Washington and Jerusalem, obscures a fundamental truth: for Iran, victory isn’t about conquest, it’s about survival.
This asymmetry – a need for survival versus a desire for decisive action – fundamentally shapes the entire dynamic of the conflict. The side requiring less to claim success inherently holds a significant advantage, and currently, Iran needs far less than the United States and Israel to achieve a meaningful outcome.
The military imbalance is undeniable. The US and Israel possess extraordinary precision and reach, demonstrated repeatedly through targeted strikes against infrastructure, leadership, and strategic assets. However, these tactical successes haven’t translated into the desired political shift. Iran’s government remains firmly in place, its military networks operational, and even its most sensitive capabilities, including nuclear expertise, have proven remarkably resilient.
The critical miscalculation lies in assuming Iran is playing the same game as its adversaries. Instead of aiming for outright defeat, Iran is engaged in a protracted strategy of outlasting its opponents, complicating their objectives, and steadily raising the cost of any progress until it becomes unsustainable. This is evident in the conflict’s expansion beyond direct confrontation, encompassing shipping lanes and energy markets – creating pressure points with global consequences.
Iran’s approach isn’t about dominance; it’s about entanglement. It doesn’t require military superiority if it can draw its adversaries into a conflict that’s too costly to resolve and too complex to conclude. Escalation, the instinctive response to a stalled conflict, is a dangerous gamble, one Iran is actively avoiding.
The reality is that the US has already expended a substantial portion of its key missile stockpiles – estimates suggest around 45% to 50%, including roughly 30% of its Tomahawk missiles. Therefore, escalation isn’t simply a matter of willingness; it’s increasingly a question of capacity. A wider war wouldn’t be about how far the US can go, but rather how much it has left to expend.
The consequences of such a wider conflict extend far beyond the battlefield. Iran’s retaliatory strikes against neighboring countries – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Jordan, and Iraq – would not remain contained. These attacks on power, fuel, and water systems could render significant portions of the region uninhabitable, triggering a massive displacement crisis.
Even with these devastating consequences, the core reality remains unchanged: Iran is built for endurance. Any ground campaign would likely become a protracted and attritional struggle. More importantly, escalation misses the fundamental point – the problem isn’t a lack of force, but the absence of a clearly defined political objective that force can realistically achieve.
Adding to this complexity is a divergence in strategic goals between the US and Israel. Israel appears to be pursuing a strategy of maximal outcomes – aiming for deep, potentially irreversible weakening of Iran’s system, perhaps even regime collapse. The US, conversely, oscillates between coercion, containment, and negotiation. These aren’t merely differences in emphasis; they represent fundamentally different strategies, and wars without shared objectives rarely yield victory.
At this point, the situation has settled into a predictable pattern: strikes followed by pauses, ceasefires that hold just long enough to prevent a complete collapse, and negotiations that advance only to avert failure. These repeated extensions reflect not progress, but constraint – a recognition that Washington, under Donald Trump, has a strong incentive to keep talks alive and avoid deeper escalation.
This dynamic is further complicated by the growing systemic risk the conflict poses to the global economy. Energy markets are already stressed, with supply routes under strain and reserves tightening. Industries reliant on stable fuel flows – aviation, shipping, and manufacturing – are increasingly vulnerable. The longer the stalemate persists, the greater the cumulative strain and the closer it edges toward a broader economic shock.
The question then becomes: who truly holds the advantage? While the US and Israel possess overwhelming military superiority, victory isn’t solely determined by capability. It hinges on the interplay of goals, costs, and time. Iran’s position is surprisingly strong, having established a lower threshold for success, demonstrated a higher tolerance for prolonged pressure, and proven its ability to impose costs beyond the battlefield.
Crucially, Iran doesn’t need to win; it simply needs to prevent its adversaries from achieving their aims. And so far, it has succeeded admirably. This leads to a sobering realization: can the US and Israel truly win this war? If victory is defined by forcing Iran into submission or fundamentally reshaping its strategic posture, the answer is increasingly difficult to ignore – they cannot.
However, they *can* continue, managing the conflict, containing its spread, and shaping its margins. This isn’t victory, but it is endurance. The real danger lies in clinging to the false belief that a little more pressure, a little more escalation, or a little more time will ultimately yield a different result. If that belief proves incorrect, this isn’t a war on the verge of being won; it’s a war that cannot be won at all – a forever war.
The conversation surrounding this ongoing conflict is increasingly documented through platforms like Reuters Connect, offering a vital, real-time perspective on the evolving dynamics and strategic considerations at play.
