wawiimuy – Page 185 – My News Links

GLOBAL #SECURITY AND #INTELLIGENCE #NEWS REVIEW

How to win the war on Iran?
It depends on your definition and understanding of what the “VICTORY” is.

Winning Strategies Against Iran share.gemini.google/OD7dZ9PH…

The question of how to “win” the current conflict with Iran is a subject of intense debate among military strategists, policymakers, and intelligence analysts. Because Iran has increasingly moved the center of gravity of the conflict outside its own borders, conventional military supremacy does not automatically translate into strategic victory.

Currently, defense and security analyses emphasize four distinct frameworks for achieving a favorable outcome.

1. Dominating the “Hidden Systems” of Modern Warfare

The battlespace has expanded far beyond traditional military targets. Iran’s strategy relies heavily on horizontal escalation—imposing unsustainable pain on the political and economic systems that surround the conflict, rather than defeating Western militaries outright.

Securing the Infrastructure of Power: Winning requires defending not just bases, but the systems that make military power usable. This means ensuring the resilience of commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf, global insurance markets, cloud infrastructure, and data centers.
Managing AI Integration: The strategic integration of artificial intelligence is accelerating targeting capabilities and data processing. However, if AI compresses military timelines faster than intelligence-sharing and evidentiary systems can adapt, the pace of targeting can outrun the ability to legally and politically justify decisions. Maintaining operational advantage requires ensuring that algorithmic speed does not become a strategic liability that fractures coalition legitimacy.

2. Exploiting Internal Vulnerabilities

A competing strategic view argues that relying on conventional strikes against infrastructure like power grids is a slow route to victory that allows the regime time to adapt. Instead, this approach advocates for direct, asymmetric pressure on the regime’s internal grip on power:

Hunting the Enforcers: Shifting operational focus away from dual-use infrastructure and directly targeting the internal security apparatus—specifically the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Basij. This aims to intimidate the enforcers into desertion and create space for domestic protests.
Information Warfare: Forcing a crisis of legitimacy by demanding verifiable “proof of life” of key leadership figures, exacerbating internal power struggles and exposing regime weakness to the Iranian public.
Dismantling Proxy Networks: Allowing regional allies to fully degrade proxy organizations, such as Hezbollah, decisively severing Iran’s external leverage.

3. Resolving the “Credibility Trap”

A major critique of recent operations is the collision of competing strategic goals: facilitating regime change, degrading military capacity, and gaining leverage for a nuclear deal.

To win, operational tactics must strictly align with a prioritized objective. For example, if regime change is the primary goal, military operations must actively avoid damaging civilian infrastructure to maintain a wedge between the Iranian people and the government. Conversely, issuing maximalist threats to gain diplomatic leverage can create a “credibility trap,” forcing actors into a wider conflict than intended if the adversary refuses to fold.

4. The Diplomatic Reality

A final perspective maintains that there is no durable, purely military solution that will not trigger an uncontainable regional war. In this view, “winning” is defined as establishing a revived, mutually understood memorandum of understanding that limits nuclear development and guarantees maritime passage, backed by strict compliance mechanisms and deconfliction channels.
–

share.google/aimode/vFkDSqwb…
Winning the current war on Iran requires redefining the U.S. and allied strategic objectives away from unachievable goals like regime change or unconditional surrender, and shifting toward a coordinated combination of economic endurance, selective containment, and a credible diplomatic exit ramp. [1, 2, 3]
Military analysts, think tanks like the Cato Institute, and regional experts highlight that a decisive victory against Iran cannot be won through a bombing campaign alone. Achieving a favorable resolution to the conflict hinges on several interconnected military, economic, and diplomatic strategies: [1, 4]
1. Match Political Goals to Military Capabilities

Abandon Maximalist Aims: Forcing a total regime collapse or installing a Western-minded democracy is highly unlikely without committing hundreds of thousands of ground troops. [1, 3]
Acknowledge Tactical Successes: The U.S. and Israel have already achieved their primary kinetic goals, including severely degrading Iran’s conventional navy, reducing missile attacks by 90%, and setting back its nuclear program. [4, 5]
Shift to Strategic Patience: Iran’s primary doctrine is a war of attrition aimed at outlasting Western political will. Victory requires demonstrating the strategic stamina to deny Iran a prolonged victory. [2, 6]

2. Counter Iran’s “Asymmetric” and “Diffusion” Strategies

Target Underground Infrastructure: Iran relies on decentralized “missile cities” and pop-up launch points to survive airstrikes. Intelligence-driven operations must continue neutralizing these hidden assets. [7]
Secure Global Shipping Chokepoints: Iran’s primary leverage is its ability to choke off the Strait of Hormuz to spike global oil and energy prices. Denying Iran the ability to impose tolls or block traffic is crucial to preventing a strategic defeat. [8, 9, 10]
Support Regional Alliances: Iran successfully exploits cracks in U.S. alliances by pressuring Gulf states. Reaffirming security guarantees to regional partners prevents them from making separate, asymmetric safety pacts with Tehran. [5, 11, 12]

3. Stabilize Global and Domestic Economies

Manage Energy Market Fallout: The conflict has caused global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) prices to surge by roughly 50%. Minimizing economic pain at home neutralizes Iran’s core strategy of using global economic disruption to force a U.S. withdrawal.
Regulate Weapon Stockpiles: Iran relies on depleting expensive allied air defense interceptors with cheaper drones and selective strikes. Expanding manufacturing depth for precision munitions is vital to sustaining a long-term campaign. [4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]

4. Provide a Credible Diplomatic Exit Ramp

Leverage Relentless Coercion: Sanctions, asset freezes, and military pressure must be framed not as endless punishment, but as leverage to alter Tehran’s cost-benefit calculations.
Offer a Verifiable Settlement: True termination of the war will likely mirror a complex portfolio settlement rather than a traditional battlefield ceasefire. The U.S. must offer a clear pathway to relief—such as unfreezing assets or rolling back specific blockades—strictly in exchange for permanent, verifiable constraints on Iran’s nuclear and regional missile capabilities. [2, 8, 11, 14, 15]

Links
[1] npr.org
[2] forbes.com
[3] youtube.com
[4] cato.org
[5] csis.org
[6] chathamhouse.org
[7] youtube.com
[8] youtube.com
[9] brookings.edu
[10] youtube.com
[11] mwi.westpoint.edu
[12] youtube.com
[13] telegraph.co.uk
[14] nytimes.com
[15] youtube.com
–
x.com/mikenov/status/2086099…Michael Novakhov (@mikenov)How to win the war on Iran? – Google Search google.com/search?q=How+to+w…— https://x.com/mikenov/status/2086099769332556272

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Aug 8, 2026

Hundreds, thousands of components in Russian ballistic missiles come from different countries around the world – from almost every continent – including from our close partners. These components are then used to target people, killing children, civilians, and warriors alike. That is why imposing sanctions on Russian weapons and on the supply of these components is the top priority. Sanctions on the energy sector are important too, because they make money from it and spend that money on the war.

Next, there’s the issue of bureaucracy. This is a serious problem. For example, I spoke with President Biden in the first year of the war, and I strongly urged him to grant me licenses for Patriot. I spoke with several European partners in the first and second years of the war, when we began using some of their military technology, and asked them to grant me licenses because their production is very limited, and some problems still have not been resolved.

We have now reached an agreement with President Trump that he will grant the licenses, but imagine if we had received them four years ago. By now, we would already be producing Patriots for everyone. And Europe – Europe that wants and would like to have Patriots, anti-ballistic systems, and missiles – would already have it all. I am absolutely certain of that. But now we are dealing with paperwork. And what is flying at us is not a piece of paper, not a paper missile, but a real missile that kills people. So if we say that the Americans should provide them, then the Europeans should as well – because with them, too, we have been working for a long time to resolve the issue of certain licenses.

From answers to journalists’ questions. (2/2)

— @ZelenskyyUa Aug 8, 2026