2026 Iran War Strategy and Analysis

[temporary1]

At this point Iran is punching far above its weight. I am actually thinking that we need to re-examine how to evaluate military strength and the immense importance of doctrine.

Iran has basically no navy and a 1970s air force. Yet it is inflicting immense damage in a 1v2 and bringing the west to its knees. If it decisively defeats a ground invasion it would be at least comparable with Russia, which allowed a Ukrainian occupation of Sudzha to persist for months. A few months ago to even suggest that Iran would be comparable to Russia would be lunacy yet it doesn't look so far fetched now.

The key here is that drones (not just FPV but water, MALE and attack) and ballistic have changed the game. You don't need a manned air force or even turbofan engines to strike back anymore. You don't need expensive helicopters to provide CAS. You don't need tanks or air power to beat tanks.

Tankers, AWACS and manned subsonic platforms in general have been shown to be ridiculously vulnerable now. Chinese acquisition of many AWAC and manned tanker platforms may have not foreseen this development. Fighter type platforms on the other hand have been surprisingly survivable.

Many lessons to be learned by big panda.

I would skip out the part of Chinese investments in AWACS and tankers. Each platform acts as a node in a systems against systems warfare.

US issue is not its platforms.

Biggest problem is logistics. Where are their airbases, how far away are they from the theater of operations, how many air sorties they can generate, how many air-launched munitions they can deliver per hour per day per week.

When in skirmish, we can all nicely talk about platforms and tech. But when in war (and war it is), it's all about logistics. And with Iran targeting US bases in it's neighborhood, it has significantly impacted US warfighting capacity. Even with all the big round numbers of platforms they have, if they cannot actually generate force/sorties it's all nothing. It only serves the purpose of attrition/maintenance replenishment

Would love if I could get my hands on a chart of US air-launched munitions delivered against Iran for every day. I would guess that it has nosedived since the start of the war

 

[Surpluswarrior]

One thing I haven't seen discussed here, and I wish I had saved the article, concerns the issue of Iran's strong performance.

There were articles a while back, policy think-tank type things, about why the U.S. had not attacked Iran up to that point.

The U.S. was already infringing on Russia when these articles were written, but had not attacked Iran.


What was gleaned from the policy think-tank articles was that Iran was more willing to disrupt the 'status-quo' than Russia was. U.S. planners saw Iran as more of a 'wild-card,' in the sense that Iran did not care if the pre-existing order was severely disrupted.

In contrast, Russia had all sorts of arrangements with the U.S.A, Europe, Israel, India, and so on. So it was more wedded to the pre-2014 status quo than Iran was.

So a main reason that the U.S. had refrained from directly attacking Iran, and in fact more directly attacked Russia at first, was that Iran was seen as having a greater likelihood of overturning the existing order in the region. Which they are now doing.

So Iran's powerful 'doctrine' and 'resolve' is, in part, a function of its desire to radically alter the status quo. Iran held back, it exercised 'strategic patience,' and so on. But ultimately, the non-liberal faction in Iran was not going to meekly 'seek a deal' if their security was not assured. It used to be understood that Iran could launch missiles all over the region - and, crucially - would in fact do so if sufficiently provoked.

The U.S. rightly saw Russia as an actor seeking treaties, status-quo, and de-escalation, while previous U.S. administrations viewed Iran as a potentially destabilizing force in a kinetic war.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I would skip out the part of Chinese investments in AWACS and tankers. Each platform acts as a node in a systems against systems warfare.

US issue is not its platforms.

Biggest problem is logistics. Where are their airbases, how far away are they from the theater of operations, how many air sorties they can generate, how many air-launched munitions they can deliver per hour per day per week.

When in skirmish, we can all nicely talk about platforms and tech. But when in war (and war it is), it's all about logistics. And with Iran targeting US bases in it's neighborhood, it has significantly impacted US warfighting capacity. Even with all the big round numbers of platforms they have, if they cannot actually generate force/sorties it's all nothing. It only serves the purpose of attrition/maintenance replenishment

Would love if I could get my hands on a chart of US air-launched munitions delivered against Iran for every day. I would guess that it has nosedived since the start of the war

Manned AWACs and tankers are the weakest link in the logistical chain. They should be made unmanned even at the cost of nominal capability because a capability that is neither survivable nor attritable isn't going to last long.

 

[_killuminati_]

Is holding out really bad for Iran?

1. US, Israel and GCC are being pummeled, militarily and economically. This cancel out the damage Iran receives, so the security situation is an even exchange. Both Iran and its enemies are being harmed.

2. Iran is profiting from rising oil price and a toll on the strait passage, that will kick start the Iranian economy, possibly making this war a net profit.

Iran potentially is harming its adversary while making a minor profit.

What about other trade, something like 35% - 40% of Iran's trade is with distant countries and UAE + India which is effectively dead, I guess.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

One thing I haven't seen discussed here, and I wish I had saved the article, concerns the issue of Iran's strong performance.

There were articles a while back, policy think-tank type things, about why the U.S. had not attacked Iran up to that point.

The U.S. was already infringing on Russia when these articles were written, but had not attacked Iran.


What was gleaned from the policy think-tank articles was that Iran was more willing to disrupt the 'status-quo' than Russia was. U.S. planners saw Iran as more of a 'wild-card,' in the sense that Iran did not care if the pre-existing order was severely disrupted.

In contrast, Russia had all sorts of arrangements with the U.S.A, Europe, Israel, India, and so on. So it was more wedded to the pre-2014 status quo than Iran was.

So a main reason that the U.S. had refrained from directly attacking Iran, and in fact more directly attacked Russia at first, was that Iran was seen as having a greater likelihood of overturning the existing order in the region. Which they are now doing.

So Iran's powerful 'doctrine' and 'resolve' is, in part, a function of its desire to radically alter the status quo. Iran held back, it exercised 'strategic patience,' and so on. But ultimately, the non-liberal faction in Iran was not going to meekly 'seek a deal' if their security was not assured. It used to be understood that Iran could launch missiles all over the region - and, crucially - would in fact do so if sufficiently provoked.

The U.S. rightly saw Russia as an actor seeking treaties, status-quo, and de-escalation, while previous U.S. administrations viewed Iran as a potentially destabilizing force in a kinetic war.

This to me says more about irrational optimism on Russia's part. Iran merely needed to connect the dots. It doesn't take geniuses to figure out what Iran figured out.

 

[Surpluswarrior]

No, you're right. Russia definitely spent too much time negotiating, both before the 'SMO' and at its outset.

This indicates an irrational optimism, as you suggest. [It was clear U.S./NATO had already decided on war.]

 

[Africablack]

On topic of attrition, economic cost, I want to say, do not underestimate American will power. While it is true Americans and Israel as countries are being hit harder than ever, their ruling class is not. On the stock market there is controlled volatility induced by war and Trump admin insider trades. The war in fact is enriching the billionaire class, including the Jewish billionaires linked to Israel. They can in fact be willing to extend the conflict, even if the country is being harmed, because they are insulated from the fall outs. They are in fact gaining more money from it. It is the average American working class reaping the consequence of their ruling class. As such do not expect US and Israel to back down from simple economic threats.

Everything has a limit. If this keeps up a tipping point will be reached that even the ruling class won't be able to insulate themselves from middle class anger. The billionaire class can play this game only for a short while before things start getting serious, Trump knows this hence the desperation to make an off ramp deal with Iran.

 

[TK3600]

Everything has a limit. If this keeps up a tipping point will be reached that even the ruling class won't be able to insulate themselves from middle class anger. The billionaire class can play this game only for a short while before things start getting serious, Trump knows this hence the desperation to make an off ramp deal with Iran.

There is a limit, but it can take very long before boiling point.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Anyone else gets the urge to make a RUAF apology form???

 

[_killuminati_]

Trump's best option is to simply leave, terminate hostilities against Iran. The problem is convincing Israel to do the same. Once both stop hostilities, Iran would take a more practical approach to Strait of Hormuz eg setting up a toll for passage of shipping.

This outcome means neither side agrees to the others' demands, and a state of war remains...seriously who believes a ceasefire would last anyhow?

Iran should have some degree of implicit security guarantee from repeat aggression from de facto control of the strait.

Israel is the big loser, because now there is nothing to stop Iran from getting a nuke. I think this is why some analysts are very worried about tactical nukes being used.

'Finishing the job' would be the ultimate grave of empires quagmire for the US, far worse than Afghanistan. Iran can induce such a last resort option by continuing to choke the Strait of Hormuz even if US-Israel stops bombing. Which is why it probably won't take such a hardline stance.

Iran threatening to close the Strait during conflict is a concept that goes back decades. US was well-aware of it, and the naval simulations conducted by USN could not reopen it. I believe US is not totally inept that it didn't consider this ahead of the war.

You have to recall one of the ultimate aims of the Euro colony of Israel - it is a dagger (even shaped like one on the map) meant to bring down anybody in the middleast that is rising up. So, Iran, had to go no matter the cost. It's got nothing to with nuclear weapons or dismantling missiles. The aim is to keep everyone weak and vulnerable so they cannot interfere with European global imperialism.