The real test is not battlefield victory, but whether force can prevent nuclear latency from surviving the war.

The recurring question of whether the United States can “win” a war against Iran rests on an increasingly fragile assumption: that overwhelming force still translates naturally into political order. Militarily, the United States remains unmatched. Its airpower, naval reach, intelligence superiority, cyber capabilities, and alliance architecture make the destruction of Iranian military assets entirely plausible. Yet the history of asymmetrical conflict suggests that battlefield dominance and strategic success are no longer the same thing. Recent events underscore this asymmetry with unusual clarity: the United States can destroy at scale, while Iran needs only enough leverage to prolong instability.

Iran does not need to defeat the United States in conventional terms. It needs only to survive, preserve strategic leverage, and convert American superiority into prolonged instability. That is the central logic of asymmetry. A weaker power succeeds not by matching force, but by changing the meaning of victory itself.

This is precisely what makes........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)