Regional escalation risks destabilsing Gulf states and global energy corridors.
“ALL that Iran needs to do to win this war is not to lose.” The proposition appears deceptively simple, yet it captures the asymmetry at the heart of the current US–Israeli assault on Iran.
For Tehran, victory does not require territorial conquest or decisive battlefield triumph. It requires survival — the preservation of state institutions, prevention of regime change, and maintenance of political cohesion despite targeted assassinations and sustained bombardment.
Following the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in joint US–Israeli airstrikes, Iran immediately activated Article 111 of its Constitution. A temporary leadership council was formed, comprising the president, the judiciary chief, and a Guardian Council jurist, pending the Assembly of Experts’ selection of a successor.
Ali Larijani described the assassination as a “historic turning point,” but insisted that constitutional mechanisms were proceeding “without disruption.” Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s foreign minister, reinforced that message, telling Al Jazeera that “absence or death of the Leader does not mean regime change,” stressing that institutions remain intact and functioning.
In this context, not losing means denying Washington and Tel Aviv their maximalist objectives: breaking the will of the Iranian government, fracturing society, or triggering a popular uprising against the system.
Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes against US bases and Israeli targets are not designed to defeat either power militarily. They are calibrated demonstrations of endurance — signaling that escalation will carry costs and that Tehran retains the capacity to sustain confrontation.
Israel’s Existential Framing — and Its Limits
Israel has framed the war as existential. An Israeli military spokesperson declared that the confrontation with Iran is a “battle of existence.” Yet this existential framing warrants scrutiny.
If this is indeed an existential war for Israel, it is one Israel chose to initiate — expanding its ongoing Gaza genocide toward dismantling Iran’s missile capabilities and neutralizing its nuclear infrastructure. The strategic ambition appears broader still: weakening or removing the Iranian leadership in hopes of reshaping the regional order.
Israeli calculations appear both tactical and political. Tactical victories — such as the assassination of Iran’s 86-year-old spiritual leader — may deliver symbolic impact and short-term domestic political gains. But there is little evidence that they guarantee sweeping strategic transformation.
Iran’s nuclear program has not reached weaponization thresholds. Tehran had reportedly agreed in recent negotiations to reduce uranium enrichment levels. Thus, the war’s objectives appear to go beyond immediate nuclear concerns and into the realm of regime engineering.
Domestic political timing cannot be ignored. Israeli leadership faces internal pressures ahead of elections, while Washington approaches midterm congressional contests. Military success narratives often serve domestic consolidation purposes.
Yet history cautions against equating decapitation strikes with regime collapse. Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated that removing leadership structures rarely ensures political stability or strategic success.
Washington’s Unclear Strategy
Assessing US victory prospects is more complex. The United States is fighting alongside Israel, but to what defined end?
In a sharply critical editorial, The New York Times described President Donald Trump’s strikes as “reckless” and constitutionally questionable. The board argued that Trump launched the war without congressional authorization and based on “dubious” claims of “imminent threats.”
The editorial underscored contradictions in Trump’s justification. He had previously declared Iran’s nuclear program “obliterated” during earlier strikes. If so, why was another war necessary?
The Times warned that calling for regime change without articulating a coherent strategy echoes the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan. “He has not involved Congress,” the editorial stated, noting bipartisan efforts by lawmakers to restrict unilateral presidential war powers.
From Washington’s declared perspective, the objective is to weaken Iran politically and militarily to extract concessions at the negotiating table — perhaps to compel broader integration into a regional security framework aligned with expanded Abraham Accords.
Yet ambiguity persists: Is the goal containment? Negotiated subordination? Or outright regime collapse?
Absent clarity, the risk is strategic drift — sustained military engagement without a defined end-state.
Escalation, Gulf Dynamics and Legal Fault Lines
Iran has expanded retaliation to include US bases across the region, while insisting it does not target neighboring Gulf states themselves but rather American military presence within them.
Araghchi emphasized that Iran does not seek war with Gulf countries and has communicated this position directly to regional leaders. Still, strikes affecting facilities in Bahrain, Qatar, or the UAE risk diplomatic fallout and potential civilian harm.
Iran’s leadership has attempted careful calibration. Araghchi noted that Iranian forces were instructed to exercise caution in selecting targets. He also stated that Tehran has no current intention of closing the Strait of Hormuz or disrupting maritime navigation — a signal aimed at reassuring global markets and Gulf governments.
Nevertheless, the risks are evident. Escalation could endanger energy security, maritime trade, and fragile regional stability.
War Duration and Strategic Endurance
It remains premature to predict the war’s duration or ultimate outcome. US officials reportedly anticipate at least five days of sustained bombing. Israeli operations have expanded to hundreds of targets.
Iranian officials, however, frame the conflict as an imposed war — one that will end when aggression ceases. President Masoud Pezeshkian pledged to “push enemies toward despair by destroying their bases and capabilities,” emphasizing unity and resilience.
Iran’s strategic doctrine rests on endurance. It has weathered sanctions, assassinations, and proxy confrontations for decades. The current phase represents a higher intensity confrontation, but not necessarily one that guarantees systemic collapse.
If Iran prevents regime change, preserves institutional continuity, and maintains internal cohesion, it will have achieved its minimal objective. That alone would constitute victory under its calculus.
For Israel and the United States, however, victory requires far more: either a decisive dismantling of Iranian strategic capabilities or transformative political change in Tehran.
History suggests that the latter is far more difficult to engineer from the air.
Open Endings, Lasting Consequences
Multiple scenarios remain possible. Escalation could spiral beyond control if miscalculations occur. Conversely, sustained but limited exchanges could lead to renewed negotiations under altered terms.
What is certain is that the consequences will extend far beyond immediate battlefield outcomes. Iran’s geostrategic position — straddling energy corridors, maritime chokepoints, and regional alliances — ensures that the war’s ripple effects will shape Middle Eastern dynamics for decades.
If Iran does not lose — if it survives politically intact — the war may ultimately reinforce its narrative of resistance and endurance.
If Washington and Tel Aviv fail to achieve clearly defined objectives, the campaign risks joining the long list of 21st-century interventions whose tactical victories masked strategic ambiguity.
In wars of asymmetry, survival is often the decisive measure.
And for now, that is Iran’s benchmark.
— The Palestine Chronicle
