 |
| Israel–Iran War |
Lessons from the U.S.–Israel–Iran War: Strategy,
Illusion, and the Transformation of War
Ali Ahmad Bhatti, March 29, 2026
The conflict involving Donald
Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Iran is not just another geopolitical
crisis. It reveals something bigger: the way wars are planned, explained, and
prolonged is changing. Today, having power does not always mean having
control—and in many cases, escalation is replacing clear strategy.
Introduction
A powerful statement often linked to
Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud says:
“For 36 years, we believed American bases were protecting us. In the first war,
we realized we were protecting them.”
This reflects a major shift in how
security works in the Gulf region.
The recent tensions between the United
States, Israel, and Iran have not only changed alliances but also shown
that the nature of war itself is evolving. Experts like Alastair Crooke
point out that global power is no longer controlled by a single dominant
system. Instead, it is becoming more divided and flexible.
At the same time, decisions made by
leaders such as Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu raise
concerns about weakening global rules and stability.
Traditionally, thinkers like Carl
von Clausewitz described war as a tool of politics. But this conflict
suggests something different: war is starting to develop its own momentum,
often moving beyond political control.
Geopolitical
Lessons from the U.S.–Israel War against Iran
1.
Asymmetric warfare is redefining power
Iran has shown that weaker military
strength does not mean weakness overall. By using drones, cyber tactics, and
indirect methods, it has managed to challenge stronger opponents effectively.
As Alastair Crooke explains, the goal is not total victory, but to
slowly weaken the opponent’s ability to respond.
2.
U.S. deterrence is visibly eroding
The exposure of American bases and
supply systems has reduced the image of complete U.S. control. Reports from the
RAND Corporation suggest that modern warfare makes even advanced systems
vulnerable. Strength today depends more on endurance than superiority.
3.
Allies are no longer automatically aligned
Western unity is no longer
guaranteed. European countries have shown hesitation, reflecting their own
economic and political priorities. As Alastair Crooke notes, alliances are
becoming more flexible and less predictable.
4.
The Gulf is hedging its bets
Gulf countries are no longer relying
only on the United States. They are carefully balancing their
relationships—maintaining ties with Washington while also engaging with Iran
and China. Security is now about diversification, not dependence.
5.
Geo-economics’ has become a battlefield
The situation in the Strait of
Hormuz shows how economic systems are now part of war. Oil routes,
shipping, and even financial systems are being used as strategic tools.
According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, economic
interdependence is turning into a source of conflict.
6.
Regime-change strategies remain structurally flawed
Attempts to change governments
through force have repeatedly failed. Examples like Iraq and Libya show that
removing leadership does not guarantee stability. Instead, it often strengthens
internal unity. In Iran, external pressure has increased national solidarity
rather than weakening the system—similar to patterns seen in the Iraq War
and Vietnam War.
7.
Strategic illusion at the heart of interventionism
The expectation that Iran would
collapse internally reflects a misunderstanding. Robert Jervis explains
this as “misperception,” where leaders interpret situations based on their own
beliefs. Figures like Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu
underestimated how resilient Iran’s system is.
8.
From military victory to narrative management
Clear victories are rare in modern
conflicts. Instead, governments focus on shaping public opinion. Media and
messaging become just as important as battlefield results. Winning the story
can be as important as winning the war.
9.
The trap of escalation without an endgame
The United States entered the
conflict without a clear long-term plan. According to Graham Allison,
once a conflict starts, internal pressures often push leaders to continue—even
without clear goals. Escalation becomes automatic.
10.
A post-hegemonic order is taking shape
Global power is shifting. No single
country can fully control events anymore. A key example was when Donald
Trump asked China to help manage tensions in the Strait of Hormuz.
This shows a move toward a more balanced and shared global system, as noted by Alastair
Crooke.
11.
The persistence of imperial logics
Even after repeated failures,
interventionist policies continue. Scholars like Stephen Walt describe
this as “liberal hegemony.” John Mearsheimer, in The Great Delusion,
criticises this idea. The concept of “imperial overstretch,” explained by Paul
Kennedy and Jack Snyder, shows why powerful countries keep extending
their reach despite risks.
12.
The blurring of war and peace
Modern conflict is no longer clearly
defined. Concepts like “hybrid warfare,” introduced by Frank G. Hoffman,
describe how cyber-attacks, economic pressure, and indirect conflicts create
ongoing tension without formal war. The International Institute for
Strategic Studies calls this “grey-zone” conflict.
13.
The erosion of normative constraints
Rules of war are becoming weaker.
Attacks on infrastructure like electricity systems, hospitals, and schools
raise serious concerns. Actions by leaders such as Donald Trump and Benjamin
Netanyahu suggest a shift toward more flexible—and dangerous—use of force.
Conclusion
So, what can we learn from this
conflict?
Wars have always been sources of
lessons, but this time the pattern seems repetitive. Mistakes like misjudgment,
overconfidence, and endless escalation continue to appear. As Robert Jervis
explains, leaders often rely on old ways of thinking instead of adapting.
The statement by Faisal bin
Farhan Al Saud highlights the new reality: security cannot simply be
outsourced, and wars cannot be easily contained. Their effects spread across
regions and systems.
The choices made by Donald Trump
and Benjamin Netanyahu raise serious concerns about the future of global
order.
In the end, the problem is not the
absence of lessons—but the failure to apply them. Political interests and public
narratives often take priority over real strategic understanding.
