Wars are often presented as solutions. They are rarely that simple.

A recent analysis in a mainstream local newspaper examined the logic behind the campaign by the United States and Israel against Iran. The strategy rested on a familiar assumption: neutralise the central hub of Iran’s regional network and the spokes Hezbollah, the Houthis, and allied militias in Iraq and Syria would lose coherence, funding and direction. Strike the centre, and the periphery collapses.

It is an appealing logic. It is also one that history has repeatedly tested and rarely confirmed.

Wars against the sponsors of militant networks often succeed militarily but fail politically. Destroying the hub rarely eliminates the forces that created the spokes.

The theory assumes that armed movements depend primarily on the resources, weapons and ideology of their sponsor states. There is some truth in this. Iran’s regional allies do rely on Tehran for training, funding and strategic coordination. If Iran is weakened, those networks will inevitably feel the strain.

Yet militant movements rarely survive on external support alone. They are sustained by local grievances, supporters with ideological affiliations, identities and political conditions that military campaigns cannot easily erase. Bombing can destroy infrastructure and degrade capabilities, but it rarely eliminates the deeper forces that allow insurgencies to regenerate.

Iran has already adapted to this reality. Its regional network has gradually evolved into a decentralised structure in which local actors enjoy considerable autonomy. Authority is dispersed, operations are compartmentalised, and the system is designed to survive even if parts of it are destroyed. The spokes, in other words, have learned to function even when the hub is under attack. The objective is to keep the threat alive for as long as possible.

This raises a question that the current war inevitably invites: if the limits of this strategy are so visible, why pursue it?

One explanation is miscalculation or frustration emanating from a long history of failures in resolving the conflict through dialogue. The absence of effective multilateral institutions compounds this impasse.

The........

© The Friday Times