US military strategy in Iran conflict deviates from initial expectations

US-Iran Conflict Raises Questions About Pre-War Assumptions

A 12-day conflict between Iran and Israel has evolved into a broader conflict, with ongoing negotiations between Tehran and Washington failing to lead to de-escalation. The US initially entered the conflict with an optimistic assessment, expecting a limited and controlled engagement that would force Iran into a rapid retreat.

However, the war quickly took on a different trajectory, lasting 40 days and imposing significant military, economic, and political costs on the US. A key factor in this disconnect was the misreading of Iran’s strategy and behavior. The US assumed that Iran’s pattern from its previous conflict with Israel would repeat, but with a higher level of direct US involvement.

Iran adjusted its response accordingly, focusing on the Strait of Hormuz as a decisive factor in disrupting economic and military calculations. The US underestimated Iran’s advancements in missile technology, operational precision, and air defense systems. Intelligence reports also failed to account for the resilience of Iranian society during times of crisis.

The conflict revealed a significant leap in Iran’s offensive and defensive capabilities, imposing high costs on the US Air Force and challenging its air superiority. Washington’s assumptions about the outbreak of instability or internal collapse were also incorrect, as social cohesion and resistance strengthened during the state of war.

The “axis of resistance” lined up against the US, with coordinated operations increasing battlefield complexity. NATO failed to provide effective support for Washington, revealing fractures in traditional alliances. Opposition to the war grew within the US, including media criticism and human rights protests over attacks on civilians.

Source: Al Jazeera