Reversal of strategies:
Aspects of US-Israeli war & Iran’s defense doctrines
By Ashkan Pirzadeh
Strategic affairs analyst
The outbreak of a new war between Iran and the US-Israeli coalition in February 2026 is a turning point in the Middle East’s security and international order. Through realist theory and strategic analysis, this conflict’s four dimensions — geopolitical, legal-ethical, military-technical, and economic-energy — could be analyzed. The article examines Iran’s counter-strategic doctrines against this coalition. The author argues that Iran, by understanding the strategic gap between the coalition’s “shock and awe” and its own “resilience and endurance,” employs a hybrid doctrine called “Asymmetric Mosaic Defense,” whose goal is not classical victory, but to reverse the cost-benefit equation for aggressors and redefine deterrence.
The aggression against Iran, though initially designed to topple the Islamic Republic and eliminate its top leaders, rapidly evolved into a full-scale, multi-layered, regional war. Understanding this conflict’s dimensions and how both sides manage it requires moving beyond journalistic analysis and delving into deeper strategic thinking.
Four dimensions of war
1. Geopolitical dimension: war for regional order
This war is not only about Iran’s nuclear program — it reflects Israel and its allies’ attempt to impose a new regional order and prevent the emergence of a rival hegemon. Evidence suggests the conflict serves as a platform for implementing ambitious long-term projects such as “Greater Israel.” In contrast, Iran seeks to preserve its strategic depth across the region — from Lebanon to Yemen — to avoid complete geopolitical encirclement and to deliver heavy military blows to any state that joined or supported this war.
2. Legal-ethical dimension: legitimacy & intervention
From an international law perspective, the 2026 offensive faces a fundamental challenge. The argument of “preemptive self-defense” is rejected by legal experts, especially since Iran was negotiating and offering assurances (including accepting IAEA inspections) about its peaceful nuclear program. This war is more “selective” than “necessary,” further weakening the credibility of the UN Charter and turning the UN Security Council into a mere instrument serving the interests of permanent members.
3. Military-technical dimension: ‘shock & awe’ vs. ‘regional war & new order’
The US and Israeli strategy in this war was built on “shock and awe”: leveraging superior air power to physically eliminate top officials and rapidly dismantle Iran’s command structures. In contrast, Iran adopted a “resilience-based” strategy and initiated a “regional war.” Unlike the 12-day June war, Iran did not collapse under the initial shock of US and Israeli strikes. Instead, it launched powerful, precise counterstrikes against enemy interests, forcing US naval flotilla to retreat from the region and destroying valuable assets. Iran’s doctrine, shaped over 20 years of studying US failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, rests on the principle that endurance and survival are the most critical keys to victory against the West.
4. Economic-energy dimension: ‘war on straits’
Economics has become the core of this conflict. Iran’s intelligent, pre-planned actions in the Strait of Hormuz have profoundly impacted the global energy market. This has led Western and even allied countries to view this war as unacceptable and fruitless, pushing them to pressure the US to find a way out of the quagmire — offering economic compensation and reparations to Iran to end the war.
Doctrine of ‘Asymmetric Mosaic Defense’
After the martyrdom of Iran’s leader, Iran formally introduced its most important strategic innovation: the “Asymmetric Mosaic Defense” doctrine — the most critical strategic innovation against the enemy’s technological superiority.
This doctrine is based on the following principles:
1. Elimination of vulnerable concentrations: Unlike conventional armies that collapse after losing central command, this doctrine decentralizes decision-making and strike capabilities to independent, local units. This cellular structure ensures that even after communication networks are severed and top commanders are eliminated, Iranian military and missile units continue operations with astonishing resilience.
2. Reverse cost-benefit equation: Iran uses large numbers of relatively inexpensive, older missiles and drones to saturate the enemy’s expensive defense systems (such as Arrow and THAAD). Each Israeli interceptor costs ten times more than an Iranian drone. The goal is to deplete the enemy’s ammunition reserves over a prolonged war.
Page 2