The War with Iran and the Logic of Costs

The question “who is the strongest” is too simplistic. What really matters is elsewhere: what options can each actor actually implement, and at what price?
This conflict is not a match. It is a series of actions where raw destruction matters less than the ability to endure over time or to make the conflict extremely costly for the other side.

I. The Power Complex: United States and Israel

The combined strength of the United States and Israel rests on close coordination and clear technological superiority.
Israel provides precise intelligence, local air superiority, and targeted strikes on IRGC command centers, nuclear sites, and missile infrastructure.
The United States supplies the mass: naval projection, continuous logistics, and saturating strikes. A major shift remains possible. If Iran directly attacks energy infrastructure or territories in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and the UAE could move from a reserved posture to active offensive cooperation. Opening bases, providing intelligence support, and conducting air operations would then broaden the front and accelerate the degradation of Iranian capabilities and its proxy network.

II. The Nuisance Capability: The Strength of the Weak

Facing this mass, Iran relies on saturation and cost escalation.
Its main tools: missiles targeting bases and allies, activation of proxies, disruption of critical infrastructure, and blocking the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb. Its advantage lies in its tolerance for pain and control of the tempo.
Iran does not need to dominate the battlefield. It only needs to make every day of conflict costly for its adversary and influence global energy flows. Russia and China provide limited technical and diplomatic support, but they keep their distance. Neither is ready to engage militarily against American-Israeli superiority.

III. Three Possible Trajectories

1. Limited Adjustment
   Calibrated strikes and measured responses to test the other side’s limits without fully crossing them. This is currently the most common scenario.

2. Progressive Escalation
   Multiplication of fronts where a local incident quickly spirals. This scenario appears highly likely in the very short term.

3. Major Rupture
   Total blockade of the straits, massive strikes on Gulf oil terminals, and expansion of the conflict. This scenario remains extremely costly for Iran, but it becomes plausible if the regime feels existentially threatened.

IV. The Common Mistake

Confusing military destruction with real control of the situation is a frequent error. Even a massive strike that brings Iran to its knees does not solve the question of tomorrow. A radical weakening would create a vacuum filled by radical groups, triggering massive migration flows, lasting instability, and high costs for years to come.

Conclusion

Looking for a winner is watching a spectacle. Observing the mechanisms reveals the real price: that of escalation, duration, and the chaos that follows.
True superiority does not belong to the one who destroys the most, but to the one who can still manage what remains afterward. The Iraq experience shows it: weakening a regime without a plan for the aftermath generates lasting crises.
As of today, no solution or actor seems ready to manage the aftermath.
In the very short term, the next moves will determine what happens next.

#Iran #StraitOfHormuz #USIsrael #MiddleEast #EnergyCrisis
@EliLake @JakeSullivan @WarMonitors @IntelCrab