THE US-Iran conflict started on February 28, 2026, when US and Israeli forces launched coordinated attacks against Iranian villages and ended on June 18, 2026, when Washington and Tehran signed a Memorandum of Understanding. Iran has demonstrated resilience and strategic superiority in its face-off with the world’s most powerful nation. The first direct conventional encounter occurred after forty years of mutual animosity, but the outcome contradicted all Western predictions of an instant collapse. Iran’s performance is characterized by inherent cultural tolerance and an understanding of asymmetric endurance, rooted in a Persian strategic philosophy dating back hundreds of years. The leadership’s vision aligned with both Sun Tzu’s admonition that “the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting” and Machiavelli’s dark prophecy that wars do not end when you want them to. This strategy also echoes the strategic traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), who championed defensive deterrence, tactical truces to buy time and, most importantly, the maintenance of civilian morale.
“Iran’s proficiency in the information domain was somewhat innovative. Viral AI-generated Lego animations depicting Iranian forces exacting retribution garnered hundreds of millions of views across global platforms. The aesthetic was selected as a “world language”, enabling the Iranian state’s communication to win the narrative war against costly Western counter-propaganda, persuading international audiences that these depictions were close to reality and successfully shaping public opinion against American intervention. The key tactical decision was to exploit the Strait of Hormuz. Iran demonstrated its ability to block maritime traffic at will, controlling a chokepoint that ships one-fifth of the world’s oil. Now US intelligence has acknowledged Iran’s effective control of the Strait, a leverage point that outweighs any conventional weapon. This advantage was not anticipated because of a doctrinal overreliance on carrier strike groups, which were vulnerable to swarming tactics. Despite this advantage, the United States neglected it and considered that superior naval power alone would suffice to neutralize Iran. But the naval blockade proved porous, allowing Iranian tankers to break through and deliver crude.
That’s a far cry from the 2003 invasion of Iraq. There had been dissent within Iran, but the external attack changed the political dynamic: the government restored its legitimacy and the people rallied around the call of the supreme leader Khamenei to foil the enemy’s plots, a vital factor of national cohesion missing altogether in Saddam’s Iraq. The Iranian people, despite their economic difficulties, saw the strikes as an existential threat to their national identity, built on centuries of resistance to foreign domination.
The massive network of US bases – Al-Udeid in Qatar, bases in Kuwait, the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, bases in the UAE – set up as a ring of steel became a ring of vulnerabilities. The main target was al-Udeid, home to more than 10,000 US personnel, which required the US to divert air-defence assets to protect its own rear areas. Iran announced it had hit 18 US sites with precision ballistic missiles, striking the nearby facilities. It was a serious miscalculation by the US strategists who mistakenly thought that their forward deployment would be a deterrent rather than a liability.
The planned ground assault to capture Kharg Island was eventually called off after exhaustive appraisals. Iran established a multi-layered defence zone on the island, comprising reinforced artillery, naval explosives and kamikaze drones. Ground forces are important but are strategically out of reach due to Iranian coastal defences. Retired US Brigadier General Steve Anderson warned that holding the island would be the “long pole in the tent” that would make any amphibious operation over the Strait a risky undertaking.
Iran’s asymmetric approach proved effective against US technological superiority, with swarms of inexpensive drones disabling expensive air-defence systems. The US was offered off-ramps for several attempts at mediation through Pakistan, Qatar and Turkey but failed to take them. Washington’s demand for full capitulation, a strategic error that cost them two more months of attrition, contrasted with Qatar’s early April proposal, which would have secured a ceasefire with the Strait partially open. The signing of the MoU offered the US little benefit beyond repairing past damage and securing political leverage for the future, while Iran received sanctions relief, access to frozen assets and financing for reconstruction.
At the same time, the internet was a perpetual war zone where Iran used AI to develop malware and complex phishing operations that interfered with command-and-control communications and altered data streams, creating another layer of asymmetric pressure. The conflict has exposed the waning US influence, with global polls showing that most people think American power has diminished. Crucially, Iran’s leaders and spokesperson remained remarkably calm throughout, juxtaposing moral clarity and strategic patience against the erratic communication of the United States and boosting Iran’s national stature as a responsible, mature nation capable of exercising power judiciously. Ultimately, Iran is undoubtedly better off. It has laid claim to unquestioned control of Hormuz, proving it can choke the world economy and energy supply at will, thereby shaping the future geopolitical calculus. As Sun Tzu said, “He who is destined to defeat fights first and afterwards seeks victory.” The US burnt through critical weapons stockpiles, cost thousands of lives, including a number of Americans and alienated regional allies, while Iran used history, geography and narrative to win. The peace may be tenuous, but the strategic lesson is lasting: Iran has changed the regional calculus for good, making sure its interests can no longer be overlooked. A new world order is in the making.
—The writer is an international law expert and an internationally accredited arbitrator and mediator.
