Iran is Crafting an Asymmetric Warfare Strategy to Confront the Joint US-Israeli Offensive

“Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” Joe Kent

Dr. Pamelia Riviere

There are fundamentally two distinct types of warfare: conventional and asymmetric. The military engagement involving the United States and Israel represents a notable example of joint warfare, which is characterized by a coordinated military effort against a sovereign state that poses no direct threat to the U.S. This type of offensive raises significant questions about the justification and legality of military actions taken against nations that have not initiated hostilities.

 According to the Department of Defence (DOD) Joint Publication (JP) 1 on Joint Warfighting, conventional warfare is defined as "a violent struggle for domination between nation-states or coalitions and alliances of nation-states, fought with conventional forces." This classification typically refers to direct, large-scale military engagements between established armies equipped with traditional weaponry and tactics. Conversely, asymmetric warfare, as described by sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, is a form of conflict in which one force employs unconventional strategies and tactics in response to significant disparities in military capabilities between the opposing factions. This type of warfare occurs when belligerents oppose each other with notably different levels of power, strategy, or methods, often leading to innovative and unconventional approaches to combat. 

A prime example of asymmetric warfare is Iran's military strategy, which, in the face of overwhelming U.S. and allied strength, has resorted to asymmetric tactics to ensure its survival. In this context, warfare becomes a protracted conflict rather than a decisive battle; it does not simply collapse but continues to evolve over time. 

The imagery of a crab serves as a fitting symbol for asymmetric power dynamics. Like a crab, the power clings tenaciously to its environment, often using its pincers to defend itself. Iran maintains a resolute grip on its sovereignty through various means. The ongoing conflict between the U.S.-Israel coalition and Iran illustrates a striking imbalance, with each side presenting contrasting sizes and shapes—an analogy that resonates beyond the battlefield to the very nature of human features, as many faces exhibit asymmetry. This suggests that in the realm of international relations and warfare, the characteristics of the actors involved are often equally uneven, with smaller or less powerful states adopting innovative strategies to withstand pressure from larger powers.

How Does Asymmetrical Warfare Function?

Asymmetrical warfare involves unconventional strategies used by a military force when there is a significant disparity in capabilities between conflicting powers. Examples include guerrilla warfare, where lightly armed partisans engage conventional armies, and terrorist tactics like hijackings and suicide bombings, which attack stronger groups and target civilians. Additionally, warfare between a nuclear-capable country and one that isn't represents another form of asymmetrical conflict. Historically, colonial powers have faced these asymmetric threats since the establishment of empires, illustrating that militarily superior forces do not always achieve victory.

Asymmetric warfare refers to conflicts in which a weaker party employs unconventional tactics to confront a stronger opponent. Throughout history, several notable examples illustrate this dynamic. During the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783), American colonists utilized guerrilla tactics to resist British military forces. 

Similarly, in the Vietnam War (1955-1975), the Vietcong and North Vietnamese Army capitalized on U.S. vulnerabilities through guerrilla warfare, ultimately leading to a U.S. withdrawal. Another early instance occurred during the Spanish Guerrillas campaign (1808–1814), where Spanish partisans carried out irregular attacks against Napoleon's troops, giving rise to the term "guerrilla." The American Indian Wars, spanning from the 17th to the 20th century, featured Native American tribes launching surprise assaults against more powerful colonial and U.S. forces. 

The Second Boer War (1899-1902) also displayed asymmetric tactics, with Boer fighters using unconventional strategies against the British Army. In more recent conflicts, such as the Iraq War post-2003, insurgents made use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and urban guerrilla techniques to shape both military outcomes and public perception.

The fall of the Ottoman Empire, another example of asymmetrical warfare, characterized by unconventional tactics used by weaker forces, played a significant role in the Arab Revolt (1916–1918) against the Ottoman Empire. Led by the Hashemites and advised by T.E. Lawrence, Arab forces focused on mobility and sabotage, targeting railroads and communication lines to disrupt the numerically superior Ottoman army. The Ottomans faced challenges in dealing with irregular warfare and struggled to adapt, leading to their loss of Arab territories. Historically, asymmetrical warfare has been used to establish Islamic political structures and movements.

Is the US-Israel Joint War Failing Apart?

The United States has faced three significant failures in its approach to Iran. Firstly, the regime in Iran has not been overthrown despite efforts to do so. Secondly, U.S. military bases in the Gulf region have sustained damage, compromising their effectiveness. Thirdly, Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz, affecting global oil supplies. 

In the initial stage of the conflict, the U.S. was successful in eliminating key Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei and high-ranking officials. This success did not lead to the anticipated regime change. Iran's intelligence minister, Esmail Khatib, has been killed in an airstrike. This incident follows Israel's announcement that it had eliminated Iran's leading security official, Ali Larijani, along with Gholamreza Soleimani, the head of the paramilitary Basij force, in recent strikes. 

Following the assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on February 28, the first day of the war, various high-ranking Iranian officials and military leaders have been targeted and killed in operations by Israel and the US aimed at diminishing the regime's authority, as reported by the BBC. The elimination of key Iranian leaders and officials continues with the efforts of the US and Israel.

In retaliation, Iran has responded with horizontal escalation in neighbouring Gulf countries, utilizing low-cost drones that have proven difficult for U.S. forces to intercept effectively. This inability to secure American bases has further complicated the situation. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz represents a critical failure for the U.S. in maintaining access to oil, which is vital for global markets. The potential for a third stage of escalation exists, wherein the U.S. might consider intensified bombing campaigns against Iran. 

However, historical context, such as the challenges faced in Vietnam, suggests that this strategy may be ineffective as well. Such actions could lead to significant casualties and infrastructure damage within Iran. 

Ultimately, it is imperative to recognize that political strategies must align with political solutions, rather than relying solely on military power. Iran's development of ballistic missiles further complicates the dynamics in the region. 

Tactics, Strategies and Political End States 

Professor Robert Pape, a political science expert at the University of Chicago, sheds light on the intense 'escalation trap' developing between the United States and Iran. He evaluates the tactical successes and failures of the US military campaign, emphasizing how Iran is leveraging its geographical advantages and control over the Strait of Hormuz through low-cost drone and missile harassment. Pape draws parallels between the current situation and historical events such as the Vietnam War and the 1973 oil crisis, questioning whether the Trump administration has lost control of the conflict’s trajectory. He warns that this could lead to a perilous ground power dilemma, endangering both the global economy and the stability of the Western alliance. During the discussion, he highlights the importance of distinguishing between tactics and strategy.

 He explains that strategy encompasses political end states and must consider political dynamics alongside military hardware. Moreover, Pape cites significant reductions in Iran's military capabilities, noting a drop in ballistic missile launches by over 90% and a decrease in drone launches from more than 800 to 75 within a two-week period. 

He argues that this deterioration of Iranian military strength indicates the effectiveness of US efforts. Even minor Iranian launches to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz reveal new capabilities that are promptly targeted by US forces, suggesting a remarkable success in hard power terms for the United States, while painting a bleak picture for Iranian prospects. On Tuesday, the U.S. dropped 5,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs along Iran’s coast near the Strait of Hormuz to target Iran’s anti-ship cruise missiles, as Democracy Now reported. In this context, Pape emphasizes the need to reassess metrics of hard power rather than adhering to softened perspectives on military efficacy.

Escalation Trap Could be Fatal

The office of the Israeli prime minister released a statement indicating that Benjamin Netanyahu had instructed “the elimination of high-ranking officials in the Iranian government.” “Larijani and the Basij commander were taken out overnight and have joined Khamenei, the head of the destruction program, along with all the other eliminated members of the axis of evil, in the depths of hell,” Katz stated on Tuesday. The simultaneous killings demonstrate that Israel continues to have intelligence on the activities of Iran’s top leaders within Tehran and can leverage this, along with the US’s near-total dominance of Iranian airspace, to conduct strikes at will, according to a report by The Guardian.

In retaliation, Iran launched a barrage of missiles and drones toward Israel and Gulf neighbours following Israeli strikes that reportedly killed top Iranian security official Ali Larijani and Basij commander Gholamreza Soleimani in Tehran on March 17, 2026. These killings mark a significant escalation, with Israel targeting key leadership figures amid the ongoing war.

The discussion revolves around the complexities of asymmetric warfare and its long-term economic and political ramifications. This type of warfare often leads to an escalation trap, where small, targeted attacks yield significant consequences, complicating conflict resolution. One key point raised is the shifting dynamics of the global oil market. As major players like China and India manage to secure safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, the reliance on this critical passageway for oil transport has diminished. The conversation notes that while oil prices have risen sharply, they have not reached catastrophic highs, indicating a market expectation that stability will eventually return. The U.S., bolstered by advances in fracking technology, has also become more self-sufficient in oil production. 

However, the ongoing war in the region complicates these dynamics. It emphasizes the need for Israel to cease its military actions against Iranian leaders, for Russia to stop providing military intelligence to Iran, and for Iran to relinquish control over the Strait of Hormuz. The situation is precarious, especially if political actors, such as Donald Trump, withdraw from negotiations while other parties continue their actions, prolonging the conflict. 

Professor Robert Pape expresses concern over the illusion of control that current leadership projects. As with historical precedents, the loss of control in foreign policy could lead to severe consequences domestically and internationally. The fear is that, similar to President Lyndon Johnson’s experience during the Vietnam War, the perception of lost control could precipitate a collapse in public confidence and support for the current administration. This idea of a "trap" underscores the importance of acknowledging and addressing the complex realities of the situation rather than simply hoping for a political retreat or a return to normalcy.

Iran Adapted Strategy 

The conflict between the United States and Israel on one side, and Iran on the other, was initially expected to unfold quickly, a brief reminder of their aerial dominance. However, Iran adapted its strategy, transforming the nature of the war into a different kind—one characterized by asymmetric warfare. Instead of confronting their opponents with direct military strength, Iran has turned to unconventional methods, utilizing cost-effective drones to assert control over strategic waterways in the Gulf and the wider ocean. 

The Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for global shipping, has become a focal point in this evolving conflict, imposing high costs on the international community and impacting global economies. 

In addition to national military tactics, Iran’s influence stretches to proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shia militias in Iraq. Within its own borders, Iran has managed to maintain a centralized system, demonstrating the resilience of its regime amidst adversity. Instead of crumbling, the regime has adapted; leadership changes have occurred without a collapse, and despite the deaths of high-ranking officials, the structure has persisted and evolved. The U.S.'s experiences in both Iraq and Afghanistan reveal a critical lesson: the duration of a conflict often matters more than its immediate outcome. The ultimate question is not solely about who emerges victorious on the battlefield, but who can endure and adapt over time.

 As tensions escalate, Iran finds itself engaged in ongoing conflicts, with its military capabilities being tested primarily through strikes from Israel and the United States. Despite this, Iran has demonstrated its ability to respond through missile launches and coordination with allied groups such as Hezbollah. The targeting of critical infrastructure in the Gulf, particularly along strategic oil routes in the Strait of Hormuz, presents global economic concerns.  President Donald Trump has faced criticism for his inconsistent remarks regarding the U.S. response to Iranian activities. He stated that he had not been briefed on Iran's retaliatory measures, raising questions about leadership cohesion. 

Asymmetric Warfare Can Shift the Trump Administration 

According to a report by CBC, Joe Kent, the director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, has resigned from his position amid rising tensions and hostilities surrounding the war with Iran. This agency plays a significant role in advising both President Donald Trump and the Director of National Intelligence on terrorism-related threats. Kent officially announced his resignation on Tuesday, expressing his deep moral conflict with the current U.S. military strategy in Iran. In a candid resignation letter shared on the social media platform X, Kent stated that he could not "in good conscience" endorse the ongoing military actions being taken by the Trump administration. He emphasized his belief that Iran did not pose any imminent threat to the United States, asserting that the decision to engage in war was influenced by external pressures, particularly from Israel and its influential lobby in America.

 Kent's departure marks a noteworthy moment as he becomes the first senior official within the Trump administration to step down specifically in protest of the war against Iran. Commenting on the situation, President Trump remarked to reporters that Kent's resignation was a “good thing,” characterizing Kent as “very weak on security.” This exchange highlights a significant divide within the administration regarding foreign policy and counterterrorism strategy. Kent's resignation raises questions about the motivations behind U.S. military actions and the influence of foreign entities on domestic policy decisions.

According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, Iran is demonstrating a significant ability to adapt to changing circumstances, a sentiment echoed by General Dan Caine. He emphasized the importance of flexibility in military strategies, stating, “They are evolving and changing their tactics, just as we are. We, too, have highly innovative and entrepreneurial warfighters who are capable of responding to new challenges.” Caine highlighted the ongoing surveillance of Iranian activities, asserting, “We are closely monitoring their developments and strategies. Notably, we are able to adapt to their maneuvers more swiftly than they can adjust to ours.”

As of March 2026, General Dan Caine, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged Iran's fighting capabilities while suggesting they may not be as formidable as previously perceived. He noted that the U.S. military is considering various operational options in response to Iranian activities, particularly in the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

General Caine's recent assessment highlighted several key points regarding the current situation in the region. He noted that while Iranian forces are actively engaged, their capabilities remain within the expectations set by U.S. intelligence. The U.S. military is concentrating its efforts on targeting vessels involved in laying naval mines and their associated storage facilities. Additionally, Caine confirmed that the U.S. is prepared to explore options for ensuring security in the Strait of Hormuz, particularly if there is a directive to escort ships, as reported by Iran International.

The writer is a freelance analyst.