Iran’s latest military doctrine rests on a dangerous proposition: a country does not have to defeat a superior enemy on the battlefield to deny it a meaningful victory. By threatening broader retaliation, expanding the geography of conflict and exploiting vulnerabilities in regional trade, Tehran is attempting to make the political rewards of military action increasingly difficult to secure.

On Oct. 21, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced that Iran’s military doctrine would move beyond retaliatory strikes towards offensive and asymmetric operations.

The declaration reinforced earlier statements by Iranian military officials that the country was shifting away from a predominantly defensive posture.

The declaration reinforced earlier statements by Iranian military officials that the country was shifting away from a predominantly defensive posture.

Although official announcements do not establish how comprehensively this change has been implemented, they reveal the direction in which Tehran wants its adversaries to believe its strategy is moving.

The distinction matters because military superiority and strategic success are not interchangeable. Washington and Israel may destroy military facilities, disrupt command structures and degrade Iran’s weapons production. Yet these achievements cannot, by themselves, guarantee political compliance, regional stability or a durable settlement.

Iran’s objective, therefore, is not necessarily to win a conventional war against the United States. Rather, it is to deny Washington the ability to translate battlefield superiority into a political outcome that Tehran considers unacceptable.

Iran’s objective, therefore, is not necessarily to win a conventional war against the United States. Rather, it is to deny Washington the ability to translate battlefield superiority into a political outcome that Tehran considers unacceptable.

This strategy could raise the costs of another attack, but it could also deepen the insecurity that makes another war possible. The central question is no longer simply who can inflict greater damage. It is whether either side can turn military force into a political settlement that lasts.

READ: Trump’s Iran war is on an Israeli leash

What It Means to Win a War

Iran’s strategic predicament is straightforward. Its conventional air power and technological capabilities cannot match those of the United States and Israel. A strategy built around symmetrical warfare would leave Tehran vulnerable to sustained aerial attacks, precision strikes and the systematic destruction of military infrastructure. Its response has consequently relied on a different calculation: if it cannot prevent an adversary from striking, it can make the consequences of that strike more costly and unpredictable.

Missiles,........

© Middle East Monitor