(The original Turkish version of this article was published by the Platform: Current Muslim Affairs on March 23, 2026)
How the War Began: The Assumption of a Quick Victory and the Initial Shock
The war began with high-intensity attacks launched by the United States and Israel under the assumption that Iran’s military capacity could be paralyzed in a short period of time. In the first wave, missile bases, military production facilities, critical infrastructure belonging to the Revolutionary Guards, and command centers were targeted. These strikes aimed not only to destroy physical capabilities but also to eliminate Iran’s ability to conduct warfare. At the same time, senior commanders and key figures within the security bureaucracy were targeted in an effort to directly disrupt the decision-making chain. However, the resistance encountered on the ground quickly revealed that this initial assumption was seriously flawed.
This first phase created a significant shock for Iran. Weaknesses in air defense were exposed, the command-and-control chain was temporarily shaken, and losses were suffered among top-level personnel. However, Iran’s response was not a centralized counterattack, but rather rapid re-coordination to prevent systemic disintegration. The Revolutionary Guards, the security bureaucracy, and affiliated networks quickly regrouped; the decision-making mechanism narrowed but remained functional. Iran overcame the initial shock not through immediate military retaliation, but by preventing institutional collapse, and this response formed the foundation of its strategy throughout the rest of the war.
The main reason Iran’s political system was able to absorb this shock lies in its structural characteristics. The system is built on institutional continuity rather than personal charisma. Although the Supreme Leadership plays a central role, the structure is not dependent on a single individual. The Revolutionary Guards, the security apparatus, religious institutions, and economic networks together form a multilayered system that can quickly compensate for emerging gaps and produce flexibility.
For this reason, leadership losses weakened the system but did not collapse it. Iran’s ability to overcome the initial shock by preventing institutional disintegration is a direct result of this structural resilience. However, it should not be forgotten that if such losses become continuous, they may create vulnerabilities that could erode institutional coordination in the long term.
Strategic Framework: Not Winning, but Not Losing
Iran’s core strategy in the war was not to win a decisive battle in the classical sense, but to absorb the initial blow, preserve state capacity, and prevent the opponent from achieving a decisive outcome. From Tehran’s perspective, the issue from the very beginning was not to win, but to avoid defeat. For Iran’s political mindset, regime survival takes precedence over all other considerations. This approach reflects the long-standing principle of “preserving the system,” which has been central since the era of Khomeini.
Accordingly, Iran operated simultaneously on two fronts from the outset of the war. First, it maintained asymmetric deterrence through ballistic missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and dispersed strike capabilities. Second, it sought to prevent internal disintegration of the regime. Coordination among the Revolutionary Guards, Basij forces, the security bureaucracy, and religious institutions served as the main safeguard preventing systemic collapse. Iran used its military capacity not only as a striking force but also as a balancing mechanism ensuring regime continuity.
One of the most critical variables in this process, however, was Iran’s unquantifiable capacity. Iran’s mode of power production differs from that of classical states. It operates through a semi-closed system involving the Revolutionary Guards, Islamic foundations (bonyads), and economic networks directly linked to the Supreme Leadership. This structure renders a significant portion of both economic and military capacity invisible. As a result, all statistics regarding Iran’s missile stockpiles, production capabilities, and replacement capacity are inherently contested. Iran’s real power has often been difficult to measure, functioning through a dispersed, flexible, and reproducible structure. This allowed Iran to generate advantage through uncertainty throughout the war.
However, it would be inaccurate to claim that Iran was fully successful. It faced intense military, political, and psychological pressure. Senior figures were targeted, and the decision-making chain was disrupted. Yet when evaluated in terms of the war’s objectives, the picture changes.
If the goal had been to paralyze the regime in a short period, eliminate the security elite, and trigger internal collapse, then this objective was not achieved. The state apparatus did not disintegrate, no large-scale societal upheaval occurred, and the regime did not completely lose its decision-making capacity. In this sense, Iran succeeded in preventing a strategic defeat. In other words, Iran did not win the war, but it prevented its opponent from winning.
Geopolitical Expansion: The Gulf, Military Bases, and the Extension of War into Israeli Society
The war quickly extended beyond Iran’s borders and expanded geopolitically. Iran’s activation of its strike capabilities against military targets in the Gulf, particularly U.S. bases, significantly broadened the scope of the conflict. This move was not merely retaliation, but a strategic step aimed at expanding the geography of war and narrowing the opponent’s safe zone.
By targeting bases in the Gulf, Iran made it clear that the war would not remain confined to its own territory. For the United States and its allies, this meant that the costs of the conflict would spread regionally and that the limits of control would become uncertain. Through this move, Iran expanded the battlefield and rebalanced the strategic equation in its favor.
At the same time, Iran sought to ensure that the effects of the war were not limited to the military sphere. Through missile and UAV capabilities, pressure extended into Israeli territory, bringing the conflict directly into the daily life of Israeli society. This was not merely a military response, but a deliberate strategy to increase the psychological and societal costs of war. Thus, Iran not only expanded the front lines but also made the conflict more complex and costly by directly affecting the opposing society.
Controlled Retaliation and the Strategic Threshold: Shift to the Energy Domain
Iran’s retaliation strategy followed a controlled and gradual trajectory. Rather than delivering a direct and total response, Tehran maintained sustained pressure through missile strikes, regional targets, and proxy elements. This approach both wore down the opponent and prevented uncontrolled escalation. Iran’s decision not to fully deploy its capabilities reflected a conscious effort to preserve its strength and prolong the conflict.
The real turning point in the war came when the conflict shifted to the energy domain. Israel’s targeting of oil and gas fields in South Pars, and Iran’s signaling of retaliation demonstrated that the war had reached a new threshold. From this stage onward, the issue was no longer merely military superiority, but also energy supply, prices, and global economic balances.
At this point, the United States’ need to restrain Israel became a critical development. Trump’s warning to Netanyahu and securing assurances that Iran’s oil facilities would not be targeted again clearly revealed the strategic threshold the war had reached. This development showed that Iran could shape the limits of the game without achieving direct military superiority. From the beginning, Iran had made it clear that any attack on energy infrastructure would expand the war beyond regional confines. At this stage, that message was acknowledged. By shifting the conflict into the realm of global costs, Iran succeeded in limiting the opponent’s maneuverability and partially achieved its objective.
Conclusion: Iran Did Not Fall, but the War Deepened
Iran did not achieve a decisive military victory in this war, but it accomplished its most critical objective: survival. Its strategy was to absorb the initial blow, prevent internal collapse, and prolong the conflict to undermine the opponent’s ability to achieve a quick result. This strategy did not produce a classical victory, but it rendered the opponent’s victory unattainable.
The significance of this outcome cannot be explained solely by military balances. In modern warfare, outcomes are determined not only by battlefield power but also by time, cost, and sustainability. Even without establishing direct superiority, Iran altered the equation by prolonging the war and shifting it from a purely military arena to a geopolitical and economic one. This effectively invalidated the opponent’s initial assumption of a “quick and decisive outcome.”
At this stage, the essence of Iran’s war strategy becomes even clearer: the goal was not to defeat the opponent outright, but to deny it victory. In this regard, it appears to have achieved clear success.
However, this does not mean the danger has passed. On the contrary, the war has entered a deeper, broader, and more dangerous phase. The conflict’s extension into the Gulf, energy routes, and global economic balances carries the potential to move beyond a regional war. From this point onward, the issue is not only whether Iran survives, but how much this conflict will strain the international system and whether it will produce new fractures.
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Platform: Current Muslim Affairs’ editorial policy.
