What if the weaker side does not need to win, only to survive? In this regular column for Új Szó, Balázs Jarábik draws lessons from the Iran war about the changing limits of military superiority. Despite overwhelming U.S.-Israeli air power and an intensive campaign against its leadership, Iran avoided collapse and ultimately forced Washington back toward a negotiated outcome.
Jarábik argues that Tehran demonstrated the effectiveness of asymmetric warfare: ballistic missiles, drones and, above all, its ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz gave Iran strategic leverage that conventional military power alone could not eliminate. For Washington, meanwhile, the prospect of rising oil prices, renewed inflation and domestic political costs ahead of the midterms made a prolonged conflict increasingly unattractive.
The broader lesson extends well beyond Iran. Much as Ukraine uses drones and technological adaptation to prevent Russia from achieving a decisive victory, weaker powers are learning how to deny stronger adversaries the political outcomes their military superiority is supposed to deliver. Iran did not defeat the United States, but in an asymmetric conflict, survival itself can be a strategic success.
Full op-ed https://ujszo.com/velemeny/a-tuleles-mint-strategia