In contemporary warfare, victory is increasingly determined by influencing key decision-makers and molding public opinion outside the combat theater.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in Iran's strategic posturing.

For decades, Tehran cultivated sympathizers, promoted favorable narratives, amplified divisions within Western societies, and sought legitimacy through seemingly independent intermediaries while pursuing its hostile agenda.

Now, American policymakers must understand how these tactics may be employed during the next phase of the war.

With Operation Epic Fury over, the U.S. and Iran are negotiating. Washington entered the conflict with explicit objectives: deny Iran a nuclear path, dismantle its ballistic missile production, and sever its proxy ties. The efficacy of the U.S. campaign remains hotly contested.

Some argue that America’s expenditure of blood and treasure yielded little. Others assert that the campaign degraded Tehran’s offensive capabilities, despite its belligerent rhetoric.

 Irrespective, Iran claims victory in withstanding a withering onslaught from the world’s most powerful nation and is likely to change its information strategy, with consequences extending far beyond the Middle East.

Tehran’s statecraft has long focused on resistance, portraying a besieged state confronting superior adversaries, enduring despite the Big and Little Satan, with justice on its side. The suffering of its population, weaponized against the West, was used effectively to rally the faithful and generate support.

But winning is more attractive than surviving, and given Tehran’s weaknesses, the ayatollahs are strategic in declaring themselves victors. Each concession secured........

© Townhall