Iran strikes back: a calculated risk, not collapse?

The coordinated US-Israeli strikes on Iran late last month weren't a surprise, but the aftermath presents a far more complex picture than many anticipated. The operation, executed with surgical precision—targeting air defenses, missile production, and even senior commanders—was a textbook example of modern air warfare. But tactical brilliance doesn’t guarantee strategic success, especially when dealing with an adversary as seasoned and enigmatic as Iran.

The illusion of decapitation

The attempt to ‘decapitate’ Iran’s leadership, a familiar military tactic aimed at disrupting decision-making, hinges on a critical assumption: that removing key figures will trigger chaos and capitulation. This echoes decades of oscillating US policy—alternating between viewing Iran as an implacable theocracy and a brittle dictatorship ripe for collapse. The reality, however, is far more resilient. Under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran has consistently demonstrated an ability to reconcile revolutionary rhetoric with pragmatic calculations – a lesson starkly illustrated by the 2015 nuclear agreement.

My grandfather narrowly avoided death under the Iranian regime, a history that fuels a visceral understanding of the stakes. Yet, celebrating a potential escalation born of illegal warfare – a reference to Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA – feels profoundly misplaced.

Survival as strategy

Tehran's history reveals a consistent pattern: confrontation and negotiation existing as parallel tools, employed with a cold logic centered on regime preservation. Even after Washington’s withdrawal and Israel's shadow campaign of cyberattacks and assassinations, communication channels remained partially open. The current assumption that sufficient military pressure will force Iran to capitulate is a dangerous oversimplification. Survival, after all, remains Tehran’s primary – and most reliable – definition of victory.

Consider last year's 12-day conflict: while inflicting significant damage, Iran portrayed the outcome as a success, a narrative reinforced by a powerful visual metaphor—a fresco in Isfahan depicting the 16th-century Battle of Chaldiran. The painting depicts a Persian triumph, despite historical records confirming an Ottoman victory. It’s not about erasing defeat; it’s about reframing it as heroic endurance against overwhelming odds.

A war of attrition, iranian style

Unable to match US and Israeli military might head-on, Iran has adopted a strategy designed to prolong the conflict, stretching it across time and space. Drone and missile strikes, often limited in scale but accumulating in impact, have targeted US bases, commercial infrastructure, and Israeli assets. This isn't solely about inflicting damage; it’s about creating friction—forcing adversaries to defend multiple fronts, testing regional stability, and steadily increasing the economic and psychological cost of continued engagement.

Iranian planners likely recognize that their missile and drone production facilities are prime targets, unlikely to withstand sustained bombardment. The imperative, therefore, is to conserve resources, pace the fight, and maintain strategic options. Restraint, in this context, becomes a form of preparation for future engagements.

Beyond the headlines: a nation's resilience

The current conflict is a battle between opposing timelines. The US and Israel are betting on a swift, overwhelming aerial surge to cripple Iran’s capabilities. But what if that campaign succeeds in degrading the regime? It’s unlikely to trigger the internal uprising or state fracture some anticipate. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is not just a military force; it’s an economic empire and a deeply entrenched political and ideological pillar. Targeting its headquarters may complicate repression, but dismantling such a deeply interwoven institution through airpower alone is rarely a recipe for regime change.

Furthermore, Iran’s internal divisions are often exaggerated. While ethnic minorities harbor legitimate grievances, most are wary of scenarios leading to national fragmentation. Even many who oppose the regime are hesitant to embrace a complete state collapse, fearing the ensuing chaos.

Reports of Kurdish militants, backed by the US and Israel, preparing a ground assault against Iran only amplify these fears. Should the state falter, regional instability would inevitably follow, spilling into Iraq and intensifying tensions with Turkey, which views Kurdish autonomy as an existential threat. The pursuit of internal unraveling risks exporting disorder to an already volatile neighborhood.

While understanding the Iranian psyche—as symbolized by the Isfahan fresco—and appreciating the nation's capacity to endure decades of sanctions and conflict is crucial, it's equally important to acknowledge the potential for miscalculation. Iran could exhaust its ammunition or lose access to its firepower before Israel and the US. Unlike Ukraine, it lacks a reliable external support system for resupply. The policy of escalating regional tensions could soon provoke its neighbors to transition from defense to offense, severing diplomatic ties for years to come. The regime is broadly detested, and has brought the country’s economy and environment to the brink of collapse. Whether this war will ultimately break Iran remains uncertain, but for Tehran, its neighbors, and the very forces initiating the conflict, the stakes are undeniably high.