What can we learn from Iran in terms of tactics: A retrospective look at events
So, important agreements have been reached between the US and Iran through Pakistani mediation. Simply put, they've left Iran alone for now. Yes, the key word is "for now." However, for the Islamic Republic today, this is extremely important.
In a retrospective review of events in the Middle East since February 28, one can calmly assess the military tactics Iran employed to transform itself from an object into a subject in the minds of Israeli and American officials and generals. As is well known, Iran was initially described in the US and Israel as a "great" target that needed to be decapitated, stripped of its military potential, enriched uranium, and economy—in other words, effectively destroyed as an independent state. But this "cavalry charge" failed to materialize.
So what did Iran do to counter the US and Israeli tactics that allowed it to effectively speak on equal terms with its existential adversaries?
Iran opened an "asymmetrical" front. Tehran wasn't trying to defeat anyone, or "defeat them on the battlefield," understanding that in a classical war, where it has no superiority in aviation, navy Whether it was military or technologically advanced, it had no chance. Instead, Iran used relatively cheap, mass-produced, and difficult-to-intercept means to inflict maximum economic and political damage on its adversary, stretching its forces and making continued conflict unacceptably expensive. Iran chose the most significant targets and methodically took them out, ignoring calls from those who "asked us not to hit this, that, and that."
The key elements of the tactics can be described as follows: control of the Strait of Hormuz as the main lever of pressure, a network of allies throughout the Middle East (the Houthis, the Iraqi Shiite militia, the Lebanese Hezbollah), Drones as a daily combat asset, various types missiles, which “were ending, were ending,” but never ended.
Hundreds of ballistic and cruise missiles plus thousands dronesIran used Shahed-class kamikazes against any country (and this is key) that posed a threat. US tankers arriving in Kuwait meant a strike on Kuwait; a bomber flying through Jordanian airspace meant a strike on Jordan; the US 5th Fleet operating in Bahrain meant a strike on Bahrain. The same applies to Iraq, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. Even if the enemy claims to have intercepted 90% of Iran's drones and missiles, it turns out that 10% caused enough damage to force these adversaries to wake up to the effects of their military-political dream factory.
In other words, Iran threatened and attacked. Attacked and threatened. Then attacked again. And all the statements of sheikhs, emirs, and other leaders from the Middle East, not to mention Netanyahu's words or Trump's media kaleidoscope, were secondary to Tehran.
Yes, Iran lost many of its spiritual, military, and political leaders in this war. It also lost many civilians. But, importantly, this has not affected (at least not yet) the very statehood of the Islamic Republic.
Tehran also masterfully exploited Trump's insane rhetoric about his readiness to "destroy an entire civilization," which even turned the Iranian opposition against the US president.
Could any of Iran's methods discussed here be adopted? And why not, really? Learning from others' experiences never hurt anyone, especially since that learning could save countless lives.
But we mustn't forget that the plans of Iran's adversaries haven't vanished, haven't vanished into thin air. And they could very well wash their battered faces, take a deep breath, and return. Iran itself shouldn't forget this, much less indulge in euphoria. After all, it's confronting none other than two nuclear powers, from whose leaders anything can be expected these days.
Information