| T |
he Middle East is at a perilous crossroads as Israel and Iran rewrite the rules of warfare. No longer content with shadow conflicts, fought through proxies, these adversaries have escalated to direct strikes—but with vastly different strategies.
Israel, armed with cutting-edge Western weaponry, seeks to deliver decisive blows. Iran, outgunned but strategically patient, is waging a war of exhaustion, turning the conflict into a gruelling test of endurance where victory may belong not to the strongest military, but to the side that can withstand the highest cost.
The dangerous escalation came at a time when diplomacy appeared possible. Just days before Israel’s devastating strikes—which killed Iran’s top generals and nuclear scientists—progress had been reported in US-Iran negotiations. Tehran had demonstrated restraint by not accelerating uranium enrichment and expressed willingness to engage in regional de-escalation. Israeli strikes therefore appear deliberately timed to derail the diplomatic process.
The escalation marked a dramatic shift in a decades-long shadow war. For years, Iran has avoided direct military confrontation, preferring to extend its reach through ambiguity, proxy forces and hybrid warfare. Tehran’s failure to prevent the strikes—despite years of warnings and preparations—exposed the brittle nature of its strategic air defence and early warning systems. More importantly, it highlighted deception at work and the ‘compromised’ decision-making that afflicted Iran’s leadership at almost all rungs. The deception was so overwhelming that the attack appeared to have caught Iranians by surprise: from Israeli Special Forces establishing a drone factory inside Iran and setting off drones to neutralising air defence and Iranian ballistic missiles, paving the way for the Israeli Air Force to step in to finish the job.
This attack also highlighted the differences in the military capabilities of the two nations. Iran’s air force, according to the website Global Firepower, has 335 combat-capable aircraft, mostly outdated US (F-4, F-5, F-14) and Soviet era (MiG-29, SU-24), with maintenance issues due to years of sanctions. In contrast, Israel’s air power is highly advanced, featuring F-35 stealth fighters with AI targeting; F-15s; and F-16s with precision-guided missiles, enabling precise coordinated attacks. To overcome this nightmare, Iran has to rely on its extensive missile arsenal and growing drone capabilities for deterrence. It boasts at least 12 types of ballistic missiles with varying ranges, from 150 km to 2,000 km. Israel maintains long-range strike assets like the Jericho III (nuclear-capable, 4,000-6,000 km) and GPS-guided LORA missiles. Both Iran and Israel have invested heavily in drone warfare. Iran’s fleet includes tactical Ababil and strategic Shahed-149 drones. According to RUSI, Israel deploys Eitan and Heron TP UAVs for intelligence and Harop loitering munitions for anti-radar missions. Iran’s air defence includes Azarakhsh and various missile systems. At the same time, Israel’s grid features advanced, layered systems like Arrow-3, David’s Sling and Iron Dome, backed by US THAAD systems, Patriot batteries and US naval interceptors stationed across the region.
As Israeli aircraft and missiles struck multiple high-value sites, Iran took some time to retaliate with over 300 ballistic missiles and over 100 drones, saturating Israeli defences and hitting sites in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The targets included the Ministry of Defence headquarters and at least two air defence batteries. The episode demonstrated that if volley size and timing are carefully calibrated the advanced shield can be saturated and critical infrastructure damaged.
What might matter the most in wars is the Iranian war stamina. Can it inflict a cost of war so formidable that Israel, with all its military and economic might and Western support, cannot sustain. “It’s the ability to keep fighting, absorbing losses and striking back. It’s using that stamina to raise the cost of war for Israel with every passing day,” says Air Commodore Khalid Chishti (retired). Iran has a large missiles stockpile and a growing fleet of combat drones, he says; it has a huge territory to absorb losses. “Iran fired hundreds of ballistic missiles and sent waves of drones, some of which did hit military bases, cities and infrastructure, hinting that it can keep this up, and inflict serious damage.”
Air Commodore Chishti says that this strategy isn’t aimed at winning the war quickly but designed to make the war too expensive for Israel to keep going. Every time an Iranian missile hits a target, it chips away at Israel’s sense of security. Every successful drone strike adds to the psychological pressure. The damage goes beyond the battlefield—it affects Israel’s economy, public morale and political stability.
Iran’s daily barrages can combine low-cost platforms with high-frequency attacks, forcing Israel to constantly activate its expensive, layered air defence systems like Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow-3. This imbalance in cost—where a $1,000 drone or a $10,000 rocket forces the use of $50,000-$1 million interceptors—creates a classic case of “cost-exchange ratio asymmetry.” This strategy shifts the focus from a single massive attack to ongoing, draining attacks that over time, strain both militaries and political leaders. “That pressure is evident. In the words of US President Trump, ‘Take whatever the nuclear deal offers’ to the more recent ‘patience running thin, do not attack civilians and the US troops’ shows it. For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, each new wave of Iranian retaliation adds a political cost.” Every missile that hits Israel, passing through the saturated air defences, is rattling.
Public frustration is growing. So is the worry that Israel’s defence systems aren’t impregnable. If Iran can continue to strike back—despite its losses—it sends a clear message: Israel can start the war, but Iran will make sure it can’t end it easily. “Iran is using its war stamina not to defeat Israel outright, but to raise the price of war very high—militarily, economically and politically.”
As the war of attrition between Iran and Israel intensifies, Iranian strategists may be preparing to expand the battlefield. According to Air Commodore Chishti, Iran might next target global shipping routes, like the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb, to pressure Israel and its allies. They are critical arteries of global commerce, through which a significant share of the world’s oil and container freight flows. Strategically, this can shift the theatre of confrontation into the maritime domain to expand pressure points and complicate Israel’s and its allies’ response calculus. Iran might even not formally block the Strait of Hormuz, having already demonstrated the ability to harass, delay or intimidate shipping. At the Bab al-Mandeb, the Houthis have already shown they can target commercial vessels.
Instead of confronting sophisticated navies, Iran could target global trade to make the conflict too costly to continue, drawing in international stakeholders, thereby accelerating calls for de-escalation, says Air Commodore Chishti. It is likely that, as supply chains stall, energy markets rattle and global pressure mounts, Tehran could bring a costly war to an early end through cumulative, trans-regional exhaustion.
The writer is a senior The News staffer in Karachi