Iran-US-Israel war: Part I - Iran's strategic recklessness.

Late February 2026. Flight tracking enthusiasts found to their surprise, a massive armada of heavy duty C17A Globemaster III transport aircraft of the United States Air Force Air Mobility Wing, setting off from their premier European airbase, Ramstein in Germany, to Al Udeid in Qatar, as well as some bound for other Middle Eastern airbases like Muwaffaq Salti in Jordan and Al Dhafra in the United Arab Emirates.

Little did they know that this mobilization, touted to be the largest since Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, would in mere hours, lead to the start of one of the largest conflicts in the 21st century. Mere hours later, Operation Epic Fury of the United States, Operation Roaring Lion of Israel, and Operation True Promise IV of Iran, would become household names like a wildfire spreading through a forest.

The causes for this conflict are many, and said causes can be debated and argued in great detail and at great length. However, in this article, we will focus on the immediate response of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and its operation in the war, Operation True Promise IV, and its falterings and analyse its position and strategy in inflicting damage to Israel and the United States.

This war serves as an exposé of Iran’s strategic strengths and weaknesses, as well as its approach to defending its sovereignty, which has brought many interesting yet often overlooked paradigms to the spotlight. Led by then Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran found itself pulled into an existential war by the United States and Israel, after multiple rounds of indirect nuclear negotiations in various European countries failed to achieve substantive outcomes.

Iran is approaching this war with a mentality that reflects the saying “Never underestimate a man who has nothing to lose”. However, contrary to that, Iran, as a major energy producer positioned in one of the most vital maritime chokepoints in the world, does have a lot to lose if it miscalculates its actions, and because said miscalculations have already become very apparent in the past 2 weeks, the Velayat-e-Faqih stands at a significant disadvantage.

The swift and vigorous Iranian response, originally targeted at US and other allied airbases in the Gulf: Al Dhafra, Muwaffaq Salti, Al Udeid among others, quickly turned into attacks on economic lifelines such as many Saudi, Emirati and Omani oilfields, Qatari gas fields, the Palm Jumeirah, the Burj-al-Arab, among others, which severely harmed Iran’s chances of gaining the sympathy of nations which still had an interest in keeping good relations with Iran such as Oman and Qatar.

Because of the indiscriminate attacks, Iran now finds itself against not only the US and Israel, but also the newly-forged alliance of Gulf countries that have now united against what they see as unwarranted Iranian aggression, with many of these nations mobilizing their own air forces in coordination with the United States against Iran, carrying out vital logistics operations as well as Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) operations in the Persian Gulf.

By completely blockading the Strait, Iran also has effectively blockaded itself and its own revenue that transited the Strait in so-called “ghost fleets” and stands to lose its vital primary revenue source, crude oil and petroleum products, and has also held the global economy hostage, with the two largest consumers east of the Strait, having their energy supply severely hampered. But since the United States is a net energy exporter, and Israel having land routes for energy, the blockade does not even punish the intended parties.

The war has now become a big game of geopolitical and economic chicken. Its trajectory is now dependent on a wider range of factors, which on top of the existing ones, now includes the economic tolerance limits of the world’s largest consumers of energy. If the consumers fail to diversify, or feel that their interests are being held hostage, these countries may find ever growing justifications to involve themselves in the war through non-kinetic or even kinetic means, which threaten the perpetuation of this conflict and its economic fallout.