Three weeks into the war, Donald Trump finds himself trapped in a conflict of his own making. What was framed as a campaign of rapid coercion—measured in hours and ultimatums—is now unfolding on a timeline defined not in Washington, but in Tehran.

For years, the conventional wisdom in Washington and Tel Aviv held that Iran could be contained through a combination of economic strangulation and targeted assassination—a “decapitation” strategy designed to decapitate the Islamic Republic’s command structure without triggering a full‑scale war. That assumption is now being tested to destruction. What we are witnessing is not a random escalation but a collision of two fundamentally different strategic logics. The United States and Israel are fighting in the domain where they possess a clear comparative advantage: security operations, airpower, and the surgical terror of decapitation strikes. Iran, by contrast, has chosen to fight where its advantages lie—in military geography, asymmetric networks, and the ability to impose costs on a global economy that runs through the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el‑Mandeb. The optimal Iranian response, therefore, is not to mimic the enemy’s tactics but to become more radically itself: to double down on the very domains where it holds relative superiority.

The logic is stark. When the Trump‑Netanyahu axis strikes Iranian infrastructure, they are testing Iran’s will. If Tehran fails to respond in kind—by targeting oil facilities in Persian Gulf Arab states, natural gas fields in Israeli waters, or the refineries that supply the US military’s regional allies—then the bombing will not stop.

In international relations theory, deterrence is often divided into “deterrence by denial” and “deterrence by punishment.” For decades Iran leaned on denial—making aggression so costly that it would simply not be attempted. But the post‑October 7 landscape, punctuated by assassinations on Iranian soil, has pushed Tehran toward a deliberate pivot: deterrence by punishment. The logic is stark. When the Trump‑Netanyahu axis strikes Iranian infrastructure, they are testing Iran’s will. If Tehran fails to respond in kind—by targeting oil facilities in Persian Gulf Arab states, natural gas fields in Israeli waters, or the refineries that supply the U.S. military’s regional allies—then the bombing will not stop. It will expand until every major Iranian energy and logistical node lies in ruins. This is the brutal arithmetic of escalation dominance. In such a contest, the side that proves willing to absorb short‑term pain while making the other’s pain unsustainable ultimately dictates the war’s trajectory.

READ: Iran “gone wild” in Dimona: Is Tehran using Israel-US ‘Madman Doctrine’?

That is why Iran’s strategy today is built around offensive action. This war resembles basketball, defense matters, but the decisive variable is how many points you score. In this regional war, Iran’s ability to inflict damage—its offensive punch—is far more critical than its capacity to defend its own skies. Why? Because of the adversary’s asymmetric vulnerability. Israel suffers from limited geographic depth, a dense and socially fragile population, and an economy highly sensitive to disruption. U.S. forces, despite their technological prowess, are concentrated in bases across the Persian Gulf and the Levant that have become more exposed than Iran’s own territory. In any protracted “chicken game”—where both sides test who will blink first—the side with less to lose in terms of territorial integrity and social cohesion holds the advantage. Iran’s societal resilience, forged under decades of sanctions and pressure, has paradoxically become a strategic asset.

The new leadership has concluded that patience under relentless assassination and economic warfare had become a pathology rather than a virtue. If Iran had acted offensively before the war was imposed, conflict might have been averted.

Iran’s non‑state allies are now being tasked with operationalizing this logic. Logically, they should raise the level of aggression: a combination of targeted ground operations, coordinated missile barrages, and drone swarms designed to overwhelm the enemy’s air‑defense capacities. The Houthis in Yemen, for instance, play a role reminiscent of the fifty archers posted on Jabal al‑Rumah during the Battle of Uhud. In that early Islamic battle, the Prophet Muhammad placed a small contingent of archers on a hill with strict orders to hold their position. They were not the main army, but their position was strategically vital; when they abandoned it, the tide of battle turned against the Muslims. Today, the Houthis are those archers on the hill. Their ability to block Red Sea shipping creates a strategic bottleneck that prevents the enemy from concentrating its forces on other fronts. In a war of attrition, such “archers on the hill” can determine the outcome.

The maritime chokepoints are where Iran’s geostrategic advantage meets the global economy. Sustained disruption of the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el‑Mandeb, combined with a spike in oil prices and a corresponding tumble in U.S. stock markets, would fundamentally alter Washington’s cost‑benefit calculus. Western arms industries and economies, already strained, have limited tolerance for a prolonged internationalized conflict. If Iran and its non‑state allies can, within the next four weeks, exponentially increase the volume of their strikes on Israeli and U.S. targets—a “gates of hell” strategy—while keeping the waterways closed through the end of April, the American belief in airpower as a decisive instrument of victory will be shattered. This is not mere rhetoric; it is a calculated attempt to make the war economically unbearable for the other side. However, Trump and his allies do their best to localize the war through opening the strait of Hurmoz. This is fatal for Iran. The war of attrition is only in favour of Iran when it is internationalised.

This war is reversing Iran’s passive behaviour post-seven October. After years of what Tehran called “strategic patience”—absorbing blows while building capacity, hoping for diplomatic openings that never came—the doctrine has today been discarded. The new leadership has concluded that patience under relentless assassination and economic warfare had become a pathology rather than a virtue. If Iran had acted offensively before the war was imposed, conflict might have been averted. But now that war is here, Tehran believes the only way to demonstrate that the enemy miscalculated is to escalate beyond the enemy’s threshold of tolerance.

READ: Is Washington already regretting its war with Iran?

The decision to abandon strategic patience was crystallized in a moment of deliberate symbolism. Creating the narrative that despite credible assassination threats, the Supreme Leader remained in his usual residence—calculating that an epic martyr‑like death would serve a strategic purpose: transforming his blood into a mobilizing symbol for a wider regional and ideological confrontation aimed at driving the United States out of the Middle East, while also leaving behind a grand legacy. That calculation underscores a deeper truth: Iran now sees the conflict as “order‑making.” The war against Iran, in this view, is not a side skirmish but a struggle that will help determine the shape of the future democratic world order. The victorious parties will set the terms for the next regional and global system.

Throughout this confrontation, the United States and Israel have pursued a strategy of mass civilian casualties—striking schools, hospitals, and residential areas in a manner reminiscent of Vietnam. The aim is to use the brutality of bombardment to force the Iranian population to surrender.

Throughout this confrontation, the United States and Israel have pursued a strategy of mass civilian casualties—striking schools, hospitals, and residential areas in a manner reminiscent of Vietnam. The aim is to use the brutality of bombardment to force the Iranian population to surrender. But the strategy overlooks the asymmetric resilience of a society that has internalized the experience of war as a constant. Meanwhile, the Persian Gulf Arab states hosting U.S. bases from which attacks are launched against Iran face a question they cannot avoid: how can they expect Iran not to target those bases, when those very bases are used to bomb Iran? The attempt to separate these states from the consequences of American military infrastructure on their soil is failing.

At its core, the argument of this war is captured in the title “Peace Through Resistance.” It is not a slogan but a strategic proposition: that for Iran, in this moment, the path to a stable and recognized regional role runs not through concession but through demonstrating an unbreakable capacity to inflict pain. The war, like a basketball game, will be decided not by who defends best but by who keeps scoring when it matters most. The coming weeks will tell whether Iran can sustain the offensive momentum that forces a recalculation in Washington and Tel Aviv, or not. What is no longer in doubt is that the era of strategic patience is over. Whether that yields peace through resistance is now the question the coming weeks will answer.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor