One-Month Review of the Iran War (Focusing on Iran's Strategic Narrative):
Iran’s strategic assessment increasingly points toward a protracted conflict, with the war expected to last at least another eight weeks or so and potentially escalate further, including the possible deployment of U.S. ground forces.
In response, Iran’s strategic planning is shifting away from merely absorbing attacks and instead focuses on preemptively shaping the battlefield. A concept known as "preemptive destruction" is gaining traction, centered on sustained strikes against U.S. bases, logistics hubs, and assembly points in countries such as Kuwait and Bahrain, aiming to dismantle them before any potential ground or air operations unfold.
This builds upon an earlier pivot toward "active preemption," representing a more offensive posture designed to suppress U.S. military buildup at its source rather than reacting passively after operations begin.
The United States, by contrast, continues moving in the opposite direction, preparing for limited ground operations involving special forces, airborne units, and Marines.
Iran remains fully prepared. Military statements emphasize readiness for scenarios such as island occupations, helicopter air raids, or limited invasions—viewing these actions as opportunities to inflict heavy casualties on U.S. forces.
Meanwhile, Israeli and U.S. aerial strikes continue to expand in scale, targeting Iran’s industrial base, further intensifying the gradual erosion of Iran’s economic and technological capabilities.
Iran’s responses have followed suit, with airstrikes increasingly focused on Israel’s infrastructure targets, including petrochemical and industrial facilities, signaling that both sides’ military campaigns are steadily evolving into a reciprocal infrastructure warfare.
Iran believes Israel is pursuing a step-by-step strategy aimed at gradually dismantling Iran’s infrastructure without provoking a large-scale retaliation. Iranian strategists, in turn, are calling for more disproportionate, vertically and horizontally integrated military escalations to deter further attacks.
The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical lever. Iran continues allowing selective passage for certain nations while maintaining broader restrictions—thereby reinforcing its role as a maritime traffic controller without resorting to a full blockade.
At the same time, diplomatic efforts aim to convert this influence into a negotiation framework. Proposals discussed in Islamabad include establishing a multinational consortium to manage oil transport through the Strait of Hormuz—a potential face-saving exit route for both Iran and the United States.
Iran’s decision to allow Saudi oil tanker vessels to transit through Pakistan on the same day appears consistent with this diplomatic trajectory, suggesting Iran is cautiously signaling openness to possible diplomatic solutions.
Beyond the Persian Gulf, the war’s geographic scope has expanded. The involvement of Houthi forces has raised concerns about security in the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, with explicit threats to disrupt shipping in the region under specific conditions.
Regionally, divisions are becoming increasingly evident. Some Gulf states are aligning with the U.S. in adopting a more confrontational stance, while others—particularly Oman and Qatar—continue seeking de-escalation and maintain neutral or cautious positions.
Domestically, Iran’s discourse has undergone a clear shift. In the early stages of the conflict, attention centered on regime survival; today’s discussions increasingly emphasize achieving strategic objectives and reshaping long-term power balances. Senior officials now highlight not only resilience but also tangible achievements—including continued control over the Strait of Hormuz, ongoing missile and drone operations, and the participation of regional allies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis.
Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf sent a significant political signal by framing Iran’s war strategy within a three-dimensional framework: “missiles, streets, and the Strait of Hormuz.” This reflects a comprehensive approach integrating military pressure, control over global energy flows, and sustained domestic mobilization.
The “streets” refer to the authorities’ nightly calls for supporters to gather in public spaces—to demonstrate internal unity and prevent opposition groups from organizing amid wartime conditions.
From an economic perspective, the war’s impact continues to deepen. Oil prices have risen to $115 per barrel, indicating that markets are primarily reacting to battlefield developments rather than diplomatic signals.
On the battlefield, Iran continues applying sustained pressure through low-intensity but persistent missile attacks—whose purpose is less about immediate destruction and more about continuously disrupting Israel and exerting psychological pressure.
The widely reported destruction of a U.S. early-warning aircraft inside Saudi Arabia has significantly boosted morale and reinforced the perception that high-value American assets are increasingly vulnerable.
In sum, Iran’s performance has been impressive—but Trump’s transactional tactics should not be underestimated for their potential suddenness.
Original Source: toutiao.com/article/1861078309367900/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.