Click to see the full-size image
While the US might possess an escalation advantage in the early stages of the upcoming conflict, where it might even inflict significant damage on military and economic targets, Iran’s capability to respond asymmetrically and maintain a more protracted war makes it very difficult (if not impossible) for the Pentagon to achieve the victory it wants.
Written by Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst
It’s pretty clear that yet another American attack on Iran is a matter of when, not if. It might occur over the weekend or perhaps after Ramadan, which ends in about a month from now. If the United States acts more tactfully, it might want to avoid attacking during Islam’s holiest month. However, if the pressure from the potential revelation of even more disturbing Epstein files continues, Washington DC might entirely drop all religious and geopolitical considerations and attack in the next few days. Either way, it’s virtually inevitable, as war, death and destruction flow in the veins of America’s pedophile-cannibalistic elites.
In terms of practical possibilities, the upcoming war is defined by asymmetric advantages and disadvantages of both sides. The US holds an overwhelming superiority in more traditional military domains, while Iran has cultivated capabilities designed to impose disproportionate costs, exploit geography and leverage proxies to deter or prolong engagement. As of early 2026, nearly eight months after the so-called “12-Day War”, amid ongoing tensions, including US carrier deployments and the Iranian response with naval drills in the Strait of Hormuz, these asymmetries are even more pronounced.
Obviously, the US enjoys decisive symmetrical advantages in most military technologies, power projection capabilities, combined arms operations, etc. Its edge stems from a massive military budget, a global network of vassals and satellite states, as well as an enormous intelligence apparatus. The US Navy’s carrier strike groups, including supercarriers such as the USS “Abraham Lincoln”, provide the tools for air superiority operations and precision strikes. The US Air Force operates airbases across the Middle East (particularly in Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia), enabling rapid, sustained bombing operations in the wider region.
These capabilities are designed to degrade the command structures, missile bases and military infrastructure of countries targeted by the US. ABM (anti-ballistic missile) systems like THAAD, “Patriot” and “Aegis” are deployed to intercept ballistic missiles that might be used to strike American assets, although only for a short while before interceptor stockpiles are drained, as was the case during the aforementioned June 2025 clashes. These bases are also critical for US ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) capabilities, enabling excellent operational and strategic situational awareness.
The Pentagon achieves this through a combination of satellites, drones, cyberwarfare assets and manned ISR aircraft, enabling real-time precision-strike capabilities. These technological advantages allow the US to conduct so-called “effects-based” operations, disrupting Iranian military cohesion without requiring a large-scale ground invasion, like the 2003 US aggression on Iraq. Even in a limited attack, the Pentagon could achieve certain key objectives, particularly through the so-called decapitation attacks, targeting key military and civilian leaders (officers, scientists, high-ranking officials, etc).
However, all these advantages diminish quickly in a protracted or expanded conflict. The US military is optimized for short “shock & awe” engagements rather than enduring months or years of high-intensity conventional warfare. Even when faced with extremely low-tech opponents, Washington DC has a terrible track record against such groups, as evidenced by its humiliating defeat in Afghanistan, where the US military quite literally had to run for its life, leaving tens of billions worth of exorbitantly expensive equipment. Thus, the Pentagon must be able to overcome an opponent quickly and impose an immediate political solution or fall back.
However, after decades of pointless US aggression in the Middle East, the political will for yet another war in the region is effectively non-existent. Not to mention that the number of Americans willing to participate in such a conflict has gone down dramatically, especially in comparison to just a decade ago (let alone 2001 or 2003, when people were galvanized by the highly controversial 9/11 attacks). There’s also the issue of financial and economic costs of such wars, particularly if they disrupt global energy markets. All this makes Americans not too keen to see yet another war.
In stark contrast, Iran has numerous asymmetric advantages, particularly its ability to disrupt America’s operations all across the Middle East, as well as its potential for attrition warfare in a protracted conflict. Tehran has explicitly built a doctrine to make any aggressor pay an unbearable price without needing to win conventionally. Central to this is control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20-25% of global oil and LNG transits. The Iranian military specializes in exploiting all these asymmetric advantages, such as rapid-deployment tactics, fast-attack vessels, naval mines, swarms of very low-cost drones, etc.
However, its most potent weapons are certainly those found in its massive missile arsenal. With regard to the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, such as the “Khalij-e Fars” (dubbed “carrier killers” by many observers), can be particularly deadly. Namely, these assets can easily saturate US defenses in the confined waters of the Persian Gulf, dramatically raising risks for high-value assets like aircraft carriers. Even if these vessels ultimately survive, any sort of damage in a confrontation with Iran could leave them inoperable for months (if not years in case of more significant hits or even total destruction).
Tehran’s ballistic missile arsenal, one of the largest in the world (and by far the largest in the Middle East), includes precision-guided short and medium-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs and MRBMs) capable of striking virtually all US bases in the Middle East. The June 2025 war demonstrated Iran’s willingness to launch hundreds of missiles and drones in barrages, overwhelming defenses both through sheer volume and the use of advanced weapons, including hypersonic missiles such as the “Fattah-1/2”, although Western sources still insist these are no more than highly advanced MRBMs.
And yet, even if armed only with MaRV (maneuverable reentry vehicle) warheads, these weapons are still capable of penetrating all ABM systems deployed by the US, its allies, vassals and satellite states. More disturbingly for the Pentagon, it’s virtually impossible to eliminate the TEL (transporter, erector, launcher) vehicles carrying these missiles, particularly as the Iranian military uses numerous underground facilities, dramatically enhancing their survivability. This ensures a high level of conventional deterrence that makes the US think twice before deploying certain weapon systems, particularly in the vicinity of Iranian borders and waters.
In addition, although it suffered several major strategic setbacks and has been severely weakened by decapitation strikes, the “Axis of Resistance” is still not to be ignored. Hezbollah, numerous Iraqi Shia militias, the so-called Houthis and other smaller groups also extend Iran’s already strong regional reach. This enables plausible-deniability strikes on the invading American forces, their supply lines and logistics in general. They can act in multiple theaters, including Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon. What’s more, both the Iranian cyberwarfare capabilities and more traditional intelligence operations are also not to be overlooked.
Geographic and societal factors also heavily favor Iran in a defensive war. Harsh mountainous terrain, fortified sites and a large population determined to defend their country provide resilience against a direct land invasion or regime-change efforts. The Iranian leadership’s very survival is seen as a defeat for the US, eroding what little political support Washington DC can muster at home for such a war. This is perhaps the crux of Iran’s asymmetric advantages, as the people overwhelmingly support their government and system, despite decades of sanctions and pressure.
In summary, while the US might possess an escalation advantage in the early stages of the upcoming conflict, where it might even inflict significant damage on military and economic targets, Iran’s capability to respond asymmetrically and maintain a more protracted war makes it very difficult (if not impossible) for the Pentagon to achieve the victory it wants. Not to mention that the US is not too happy with a scenario where global oil and LNG supplies are disrupted, leading to price hikes that might benefit Russia. And yet, while the aforementioned asymmetries favor mutual deterrence over direct warfare, the US still won’t let “a good war go to waste”.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
não comentem embaixo de comentários de sionistas e nazistas porque com o tempo eles abandonaram o site sf, porque ninguém comentou o comentário deles e eles verão que estão falando para o vazio e perdendo tempo.
usa took down venezuela in 90 minutes…it might take 100 for iran…hehehehe