The paradoxical logic of victory in asymmetric warfare reveals how conflicts between unequal powers are defined very differently. In such wars, the stronger side, often a conventional military force, must achieve a clear victory to be recognised as successful, while the weaker side can view mere survival as a form of success.
Asymmetric Warfare and its Implications
This principle underpins the ongoing tensions between the US, Israel, and Iran. Henry Kissinger articulated this sentiment during the Vietnam War, stating, “The guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if he does not win.” This dynamic has been evident from Vietnam to the conflicts involving Hezbollah in 2006, and it continues to shape the strategies of nations today.
The Strategic Landscape
The military capabilities of the US and Israel far exceed those of Iran. However, in the realm of asymmetric warfare, military might alone does not guarantee political success. Washington is currently grappling with this reality as it contemplates its strategy in Iran.
The Timing of Conflict
President Trump has suggested that the conflict may last approximately four weeks, but such timelines are often unpredictable. The political landscape in the US, particularly with the midterm elections approaching in November, could significantly influence the perception of the war’s success. Additionally, Trump’s scheduled visit to China at the end of March adds further complexity, as this visit is part of a broader strategy to counter the perceived long-term threat posed by China.
The Stakes for Washington
If the Iranian regime collapses or undergoes significant political change during this period, the US could portray this as a strategic success. Conversely, if the regime remains intact, the narrative of victory becomes less clear. Washington might then focus on narrower objectives, such as the neutralisation of Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities, which are increasingly being framed as essential outcomes of the conflict.
Tehran’s Endurance Strategy
Tehran appears to recognise the asymmetric nature of this conflict. The Iranian regime is unlikely to defeat the US and Israel through direct military engagement; instead, it aims to outlast its adversaries. Internal dynamics within Iran complicate this, as there are signs of strain among its leadership, but the Revolutionary Guards are consolidating their power over wartime decisions.
The Dynamics of Power
The potential elevation of Mojtaba Khamenei as the supreme leader, despite clerical reservations, underscores the shifting power dynamics within Iran. In asymmetric warfare, maintaining military resilience and political stability is essential. Recent actions by Iran’s president, including apologies to Gulf states for missile strikes, highlight the complex interplay between political messaging and military operations.
Defensive Strategies and Regional Alliances
Over the years, Iran has developed a multi-layered defence system designed to withstand external pressure. Central to this is the Revolutionary Guards, supported potentially by the regular armed forces. This decentralised approach allows them to absorb attacks and maintain operational continuity, thereby increasing the cost for their opponents. Despite losses among senior commanders, the Guards remain capable of executing missile and drone operations.
Furthermore, Iran aims to expand its influence through a network of regional allies and proxy forces. The objective is not to achieve a decisive victory but to gradually impose political, military, and economic costs on the US and its allies over time, making the dimension of time a crucial factor in this conflict.
The Economics of War
Logistics and economics play pivotal roles in the sustainability of war efforts. As Carl von Clausewitz noted, military operations are supported by the material and political resources behind them. The critical question remains: which side can endure longer under the strain of conflict and absorb economic impacts with fewer political repercussions?
The US’s Global Commitments
While the US possesses vast military and economic resources, its commitments are global, which could complicate its capacity to maintain an extended conflict with Iran without affecting other military engagements, such as in Ukraine. Israel’s reliance on US military support further complicates the equation, as its leadership seeks to reduce this dependency over time.
Global Trade and Conflict
The Strait of Hormuz plays a crucial role in this conflict, as it is vital for global oil and liquefied natural gas transportation. Any disruption in this region could lead to significant economic ramifications, illustrating how regional conflicts can escalate into broader economic crises. In asymmetric warfare, the economy often becomes an extension of the battlefield.
Deterrence and the Nature of Victory
This conflict tests not only the resilience of the Iranian regime but also the credibility of American deterrence. Historically, great powers do not lose wars on the battlefield; they lose when military superiority fails to secure a clear political outcome. Ultimately, power is judged by results rather than intentions.
The fundamental question is not about which side has superior military capabilities—this is already established—but rather which side can sustain its efforts longer. If Tehran can endure, the harsh realities of asymmetric warfare will reaffirm that the stronger power must win decisively to maintain deterrence, while the weaker side need only survive. This paradox of victory is the strategic dilemma that now confronts Washington in relation to Iran.
