Yves here. I hope you’ll find value in this substantial analysis by Joseph Busby from the Reality-Based Analysis Group, which delves into Iran’s strategic thinking and its priorities. I found the insights particularly enlightening, clarifying several issues surrounding the Shia faith’s emphasis on martyrdom and the robust moral foundation of Shia Islam, as noted by Alastair Crooke and Professor Mohammed Marandi. This article offers a comprehensive understanding of these foundational aspects, alongside critical background information regarding the development of Iran’s ballistic missile program, which I hadn’t encountered previously.
Though this piece was published in July, its observations remain highly relevant today.
By Joseph Busby, Founder & Director, Reality-Based Analysis Group, an independent geopolitical analysis firm based in Vienna, Austria. RBAG is affiliated with the Association for the Promotion of International Development and Stability (APIDS — apids.at). Originally published at its website
Iran entered the conflict of 2026 with a strong sense of confidence in its eventual victory. As the war progressed, it became clear that Iran’s strategic rationale had not only been validated but had also resulted in its deeper integration into the multipolar global order—potentially rendering any diplomatic resolutions with the West implausible.
Confident of Victory
Before the joint Israeli and US strikes against Iran in February 2026, both parties believed they would achieve victory. This optimism stemmed from their contrasting definitions of success. The US and Israel aimed for complete regime change and the elimination of Iran as a threat to their interests in the Gulf. Conversely, Iran’s definition of victory was centered on regime survival and territorial integrity. Iran entered the conflict with a plethora of advantages: its geographical understanding of the Strait of Hormuz, an impressive arsenal of advanced intermediate-range ballistic missiles, and a strategic operational framework designed to adapt to potential losses in leadership.
The outcomes of the 12-day missile exchange with Israel in June 2025, which had demonstrated the effectiveness of Iranian missiles against both US and Israeli defenses, fueled Iran’s confidence in its capacity to inflict significant damage on US bases and manage escalation, provided that nuclear weapons were not employed. Iran made its assessments publicly known in an attempt to caution the United States and Israel against aggression, explicitly outlining the consequences of any military actions taken against it. When confronted with attacks, the Iranian government not only weathered the assault but emerged from the hostilities in an even stronger position.
This essay seeks to elucidate the strategic reasoning underpinning Iran’s actions, explaining its morale and why it can be viewed as winning the conflict. It will also delve into how Western efforts to undermine Iran have instead forged stronger ties within the multipolar framework and why prospects for diplomatic engagements with Iran may be damaged for years to come.
The Underlying Logic
Iran’s defense strategy aligned with its strategic geography and key economic targets in the Gulf.
Iran’s strategy is founded on three core pillars: geography, historical experiences, and ideology. Much like the US, Iran’s geographical features play a significant role in its national security. The country’s high plateau is surrounded by the Zagros and Elburz mountains, providing a natural barrier, especially at the critical Strait of Hormuz. The logistics of invading such a fortified region have proven nearly impossible, echoed by the historical futility of previous invasions.
However, less obvious to outsiders is Iran’s collective memory of the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988), a devastating conflict instigated by Iraq—with support from the West—that inflicted profound trauma on the nation. Approximately a million Iranians were killed or injured, and many others were gassed; nearly every Iranian at the time was affected in some capacity. From this experience, the Iranian leadership gleaned two vital lessons: that self-defense must be an autonomous responsibility and that Western powers would disregard international laws during conflicts where their interests were engaged.
The West often overlooks Iran’s doctrine of self-reliance, shaped during this period, characterized by Ayatollah Khomeini’s compelling slogans—“Neither East nor West” and “Neither Oppress nor Accept Oppression.” The former underscores Iran’s commitment to self-determination, while the latter reflects a view of power deeply rooted in its religious identity. Scholars Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett in their significant work, Going to Tehran, emphasize that Iran acts as a rational entity deeply invested in independence, contrasting with attempts by foreign powers to impose dominance. Their argument suggests that the US could have engaged with Iran similarly to its relationship with China; however, the US pursued hegemony but ultimately failed due to a fundamental misreading of Iranian motives—particularly a prevailing culture of honor.
Karbala and the Fight Against Empire
Honor serves as a crucial strategic consideration absent from Western military analyses, primarily because of its divergence from the Western conceptual framework. The Iranian notions of honor are encapsulated in the terms “ezzat” (representing dignity and glory) and “zillat” (denoting humiliation). The desire to uphold the former while avoiding the latter constitutes an essential aspect of Iranian national identity. Prior to his death during the initial Israeli-US attacks, Supreme Leader Khamenei framed Iran’s foreign policy using the guiding principles of “dignity, wisdom, and expediency,” placing dignity at the forefront. This framework inherently precludes Iran from accepting any agreements that compromise its dignity, as such accords would be seen as capitulations rather than compromises.
This profound understanding of honor finds its roots in the events commemorated in Shia Islam, particularly the Battle of Karbala in 680 AD. There, Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, defied allegiance to the Umayyad Caliph Yazid, whom he perceived as a tyrant. His refusal to submit resulted in his martyrdom and that of his followers on the day of Ashura. This narrative has become a cornerstone of Shia identity, celebrating the choice of death over the dishonor of subjugation. Viewing Iranian strategy through the lens of this historical context reflects a pursuit of justice rather than mere success. When faced with overarching powers, Iran consistently contextualizes its resistance through the legacy of Hussein, with the Islamic Republic framing its defiance of hegemony as a moral imperative against tyranny.
Under this worldview, Iran positions itself as the champion of the oppressed, with Khomeini’s ideologies dividing humanity into the “mostazafin” (the oppressed) and “mostakberin” (the oppressors). In contemporary scenarios, the US often occupies the role of the modern Yazid, imposing restrictions and exercising power in foreign realms. Iran perceives its struggle not merely as political but as a fundamental moral stance against oppressive forces, and thus, such conceptualizations are not topics open to negotiation.
As noted by Mohammad Marandi, a professor at the University of Tehran, “Iran cannot be bombed into surrender.” Having direct experience in the Iran-Iraq War and an insider’s perspective on the ruling class, Marandi underscores the indefatigable spirit of the Iranian populace. A state that prioritizes dignity over tactical outcomes cannot be subjugated by sheer military force. Thus, Iran’s enduring confidence in its eventual triumph is rooted in its identity, as any efforts to compel submission clash fundamentally with its essence.
The Twelve-Day War and Iran’s Red Lines
The insights detailed here should have been apparent to Western leaders, particularly after the events of June 2025. This period marked a conflict instigated by a targeted Israeli strike that eliminated several of Iran’s senior military figures, followed by US airstrikes on various Iranian nuclear sites. Iran’s response was substantial: during the Twelve-Day War, it launched over 500 ballistic missiles targeting Israeli military installations and strategic assets, successfully breaching US and Israeli defenses. This retaliation drew heavily upon Israel’s THAAD interceptor systems, showcasing the effectiveness of Iran’s missiles in this high-stakes environment.
After this escalation, Iran made its red lines clear: any future aggression from Israel or the US would result in retaliation against US installations within the Gulf region and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The advanced missile capabilities that Iran had showcased in June 2025 served as a stern warning to any would-be aggressors. During this tense period, reports indicated that sections of the Strait were temporarily closed as Iran signaled the potential for serious escalation should its interests be threatened.
Economic Hit Men and the Failed Color Revolution
The inability to subdue Iran through kinetic means during the Twelve-Day War prompted US and Israeli leaders to shift their focus toward covert regime change strategies. They employed economic hit men to destabilize the Iranian economy, thereby igniting unrest and civil discontent as part of a broader plan to strengthen their own power dynamics through a “color revolution,” framed as a grassroots movement but actually supported by foreign intervention.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared the ambition behind “maximum pressure” tactics aimed at the Iranian economy, which included inciting domestic discontent through currency devaluation and widespread inflation. This economic assault disrupted the lives of many Iranians, pushing them toward protests, which were then infiltrated and escalated by intelligence operatives from both Israel and the US.
Tehran quickly recognized this pattern and responded vigorously, implementing internet shutdowns and utilizing electronic warfare to combat these infiltrative tactics. A subsequent crackdown against violent protestors—initially comprising innocent civilians—escalated, resulting in thousands of casualties.
The strategic message was unmistakable: the failures of the Twelve-Day War and the subsequent economic offensive only solidified Iran’s resilience and determination to defend its sovereignty. The attempt to shape domestic discontent through direct intervention had failed, revealing the miscalculations of US and Israeli planners.
Shattering the Ceasefire
Shifts from the Twelve-Day War to the collapse of the June 2026 Memorandum of Understanding.
The repercussions of the Twelve-Day War and the failed regime change efforts were apparent, with Iran’s statements serving as both warnings and indications of its strategic rationale. General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that any conflict with Iran would severely deplete US missile defenses, complicating the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz should Iran choose to close it. Despite this, the allure of initiating conflict persisted, culminating in a decisive military offensive spearheaded by Israel and the US in February 2026, which resulted in the shocking assassination of key Iranian leadership figures.
Far from destabilizing Iran, these aggressive strikes provoked a strong and unified response from the military and the populace, underscoring Iran’s resolve to retaliate and pursue its pre-war commitments. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz emerged as part of Iran’s strategic calculus, aiming to restrict access and exert power over a crucial economic route.
Western analysts expressed disbelief at Iran’s assertive retaliation, failing to understand the complexities behind Iran’s strategic framework. Their underestimation of Iranian capabilities and motivations opened a window for Iran to demonstrate its policies of escalation, striking a wide range of targets across the Gulf and reaffirming the notion of Iranian escalation dominance.
Missiles, Missile Cities, and Escalation Dominance
Iran’s missile reach and asserted capabilities against US and allied bases.
How did Iran cultivate such an advanced missile arsenal? The answer lies in its strategic exploit of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which limited the US and USSR while leaving Iran free to develop its missile technology unimpeded. Over the years, Iran invested heavily in the production of advanced, solid-fuel missiles, leading to a formidable arsenal with the potential to reach beyond its immediate borders. Its hypersonic Fattah-class missiles, reportedly designed to evade interception, signify a leap in capability compared to its adversaries.
While Iran limits its public missile range to 2,000 kilometers, effective actions—such as missiles targeting Diego Garcia, a British base in the Indian Ocean—have begun to question the perceived boundaries of its missile range. The ambiguity surrounding this capacity provides a strategic advantage, as it keeps adversaries guessing and requires them to prepare for the possibility that they are within reach.
Iranian strategic planners, recognizing vulnerabilities exposed during the Iran-Iraq war, prioritized the concealment of their military assets by constructing hardened “missile cities” within mountainous regions. These sites remain resilient against aerial bombardment, capable of sustaining operations despite intense strikes. One example includes the Yazd missile complex, where vast quantities of weapons are produced monthly in fortified conditions. In the face of attacks on mobile missile launchers, expected to have suffered high destruction rates initially, Iran’s core missile production capabilities remained intact.
The juxtaposition of missile production facilities, effective defense mechanisms, and geographic advantages underpins Iran’s confidence. In contrast to the assumption that the US and Israel could dictate terms and escalate tensions to force Iranian capitulation, Iran demonstrated its capacity to dictate the pace and scope of conflict via strategic offensives targeting crucial US installations and allies in the Gulf. In addition to pinpoint missile strikes, Iran also articulated expansive (and future) retaliatory measures, escalating the stakes in the conflict, particularly through its control over the strategic Strait of Hormuz.
The Mosaic Defense
Crucially, the US and Israel underestimated Iran’s internal power structure, mistaking their targeted assassinations for effective decapitation strikes. The IRGC had preemptively developed a strategy known as “defa’e mozaiki” or mosaic defense, allowing the command hierarchy to diffuse across the nation in the event of attacks on leadership. This immediate decentralization ensures that the regime does not falter in leadership voids, and, as seen in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Leader’s death, Iran quickly transitioned to leadership continuity without losing operational momentum.
Consequently, the anticipated civil uprising against the government following these strikes did not occur; paradoxically, many civilians came together in support of the regime. Instead of diminishing support for the ruling class, these events galvanized public sentiment around national unity, further solidifying the Iranian government’s legitimacy.
Unintended Integration
The Islamic Republic’s original doctrine of “Neither East nor West” has given way to a more pragmatic “Look East” policy as shifting geopolitical dynamics have ushered in multipolarity. Iran became a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2023 and joined BRICS a year later. The nation engaged in joint military exercises with both Russia and China while preserving its autonomy by avoiding formal military alliances. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi clarified that although security cooperation with Russia is underway, this does not indicate a military alliance, an assertion echoed by President Putin.
Though Iran’s military capabilities may not match those of China and Russia, its strategic partnerships have matured. By moving away from reliance on the American GPS system to China’s BeiDou-3 military technology and potentially leveraging Russian electronic warfare systems, Iran stands poised to improve its situational awareness in conflicts against Western powers. Recent sanctions against Chinese satellite firms illustrate the increasing vigilance surrounding Iranian defense capabilities.
As Western pressures have heightened, Iran’s response has been a shift towards greater integration with allied states. Its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 and the subsequent sanctions prompted rapid alignments with SCO and BRICS, strengthening economic partnerships that bolster Iranian resilience against external aggression.
The Poisoned Well
Despite periodic ceasefires, hostilities continue, with the June and July pauses proving to be merely temporary respites. The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding at Versailles lacked any substantial commitment from the US or Israel, who immediately contravened its terms. The series of strategies implemented by both sides seem to suggest preparations for further conflict.
As the geopolitical landscape remains fraught with tension, with ongoing military actions in Lebanon and against various actors in the region, the path toward meaningful diplomatic negotiations appears blocked. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s characterization of the United States as “not-agreement-capable” highlights a significant barrier to peace, reflecting a pervasive distrust in maintaining any agreement reached with the US. Iran’s own reservations about American intentions are equally palpable, particularly in light of past diplomatic failures.
This substantive conflict—originally framed as essential to curtail Iran’s potential nuclear ambitions—has morphed into a scenario where viable resolutions appear improbable without addressing the profound issues of trust and sovereignty. As Iran’s geopolitical stance strengthens following these intensified confrontations, it is likely that future diplomatic efforts will hinge on power dynamics shaped by ongoing struggle rather than harmonious agreements.
As myriad challenges continue to unfold across the Middle East, the situation suggests that Iran is set to emerge from this conflict emboldened, well-positioned in the multipolar order, and maintaining its control over key logistical routes.
Postscript: Subsequent to this analysis, the collapse of the Memorandum of Understanding and the failure of a brokered ceasefire saw intense fighting escalate once more. This ongoing conflict has led to military engagements across numerous cities in Iran, alongside Iranian retaliatory strikes on US and allied territories.
