Assessing Iran’s Military Posture in the Wake of Israeli and U.S. Strikes
Following the direct strikes on Iranian nuclear sites by the United States and Israel, the global spotlight has turned to one pressing question: What military options does Iran realistically have left? According to security analysts and defense experts, Iran’s immediate strategic space has narrowed, though not entirely disappeared.
One of the most discussed options remains the closure or disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital maritime chokepoint for global oil trade. While Iran has threatened such action before, experts suggest that it can at best create temporary disruption, not a complete blockade. A full shutdown could spark a regional war, inflate global oil prices, and ironically, hurt Iran’s economy — since its lifeline still depends on crude oil exports.
Economic Blowback: Can Iran Afford to Disrupt Oil Trade?
If Iran were to disturb the Strait of Hormuz, three major impacts are likely:
- Escalation of conflict in the maritime and air domains, potentially triggering direct naval warfare with regional and Western forces.
- Global commodity price spikes, especially in oil and food, affecting not just the Middle East but also oil-dependent countries like China and Pakistan.
- Increased insurance costs for shipping, making the entire trade route more volatile.
While oil prices would surge — seemingly benefiting Iran — the reality is that Iran would struggle to sell that oil due to sanctions, lack of buyers, and financial restrictions. In effect, Iran would lose more than it gains, making Hormuz disruption a symbolic gesture rather than a viable strategy.
Missile Strikes and the Risk of Wider Destruction
Iran’s second option is to continue missile attacks in a tit-for-tat pattern, especially against Israeli targets. This aligns with what Iran has done post-Gaza escalation. But there’s a caveat: if this conflict reaches urban centers or metropolitan zones, the destruction could spiral, leading to higher civilian casualties and international condemnation.
While the Iranian leadership may continue its retaliatory missile strategy, experts caution that the destruction-to-impact ratio may backfire. As one expert noted, “This is not just about firing missiles — it’s about whether you can withstand the strategic costs that follow.”
Diplomatic Pressure: A Route Iran Can’t Ignore
In the long term, Iran’s most effective recourse lies in diplomacy. With limited military resources and growing economic fatigue, ceasefire efforts supported by regional powers like China, Pakistan, and Gulf states appear to be the most viable way forward.
Iran is expected to leverage its existing ties with these nations to create a negotiated de-escalation plan. Diplomats believe that without external mediation, the conflict could bleed into broader war theatres — something neither Iran nor its allies can afford.
Air Defence: The Glaring Weakness
One of the most critical failures exposed during the strikes was Iran’s inadequate air defense capability. Despite having deals for Russian systems like the S-400, they were never fully operationalized. Reports suggest Russia insisted on operating these systems with its own personnel, leaving Iran with unintegrated, possibly non-functional equipment.
Iran’s failure to secure a potent and independent air defence shield has left its skies vulnerable. Attempts to acquire Western technology were never viable due to sanctions, and even China has maintained a cautious stance on military exports, offering economic aid but not advanced weapon systems.
Why Iran’s Air Force Strategy Failed
Iran’s overreliance on ballistic missiles instead of fighter jets is now under scrutiny. Military strategists argue that missiles alone cannot create or control the battlefield environment — unlike air power, which brings flexibility, concentration of force, and the ability to dictate the tempo of war.
Simply put, Iran lacked offensive and defensive air power. Countries like Pakistan and India have already learned that a robust air force is not optional — it’s essential. Without air superiority, even the best missile strategies become reactive, not preventive.
The Power of Air Dominance: A Missed Opportunity
As one expert emphasized, “Air power doesn’t just hit targets — it shifts mentalities.” The U.S. and Israel showcased this doctrine by deploying overwhelming air missions, not just to destroy, but to demoralize and deter.
Iran, in contrast, failed to demonstrate air readiness, which not only weakened its retaliatory capability but also encouraged adversaries to escalate with minimal risk. A well-trained, long-range, and independent air force could have offered both strategic depth and deterrence — but Iran bet on missiles and lost that psychological edge.
Final Thoughts: Iran Needs Strategy, Not Just Strength
While Iran has limited military options left, it is not without tools. Strategic disruption, missile deterrence, and international diplomacy remain its core levers. However, each of these comes with limitations and consequences.
The long-term path for Iran will require a mix of restraint, tactical retaliation, and smart alliances. Direct engagement with the U.S. seems unlikely, but Iran can still shift the narrative by focusing on ceasefire diplomacy and rebuilding its defensive credibility.
