Iran Is Fighting a War of Exhaustion
Mark Kimmitt
The National Interest
March 26, 2026
The US-Israeli strategy of attrition is ill-suited to defeat Iran’s strategy of resistance and patience.
Weeks into the war against Iran, the offensive capabilities of the Iranian regime
have been degraded to a fraction of their prewar strength, and its defensive
capabilities are nonexistent. US and Israeli warplanes fly uncontested over
Iranian airspace, and the thousands of missions flown in 2025 and 2026 have
seen only one aircraft hit by enemy fire. The military infrastructure of Iran has
been shattered, except for the ability to conduct selective attacks against oil
infrastructure and radar sites, and the ability to intimidate international shipping.
The Pentagon sees this as kamikaze tactics—clever, high-profile incidents with
few long-term strategic consequences.
However, despite assurances from the White House and the Pentagon, the Iranians are unwilling to surrender or even seek a ceasefire in the conflict. President Donald Trump’s now-postponed threats to bomb Iranian energy infrastructuHre reveal a fundamental problem. The United States and Israel are fighting a war of attrition, where the goal is to compel the Iranians to submit or surrender through a campaign aimed at the destruction of their military infrastructure. If the Iranians cannot fight, they will not fight.
Yet, the Iranians are fighting a different war—a war of exhaustion. Their objective is to absorb US and Israeli attacks, hold on, hold out, and wait for the impatient Americans to tire. It is a war of will and defiance, not capacity, and it worked in Vietnam, twice in Afghanistan, and repeatedly in Southern Lebanon. For the Iranians, they win by not losing.
Carl von Clausewitz, perhaps the most famous military theorist in history, once warned, “The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish…the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature.”
Such is the case in the current conflict. Washington and Jerusalem believe the solution is to destroy Iranian hardware and, realizing its weakness, Tehran will capitulate. The brilliant air campaign has exceeded all expectations. Still, much like the “body count” fallacy that guided US strategy in the Vietnam War, this is unlikely to lead to victory. Clausewitz would say that this strategy of attrition is self-defeating, as the Iranians are defending with a strategy of exhaustion, through resistance and patience.
The first element of the Iranian strategy is muqawamat (“resistance”). This was best exemplified in 2006, when Israeli airstrikes flattened the Hezbollah suburbs of Beirut, not unlike Gaza today. Infrastructure throughout southern Lebanon was destroyed, and little in the region was left untouched. Yet, not long after the announcement of a ceasefire, Hezbollah organized the “Divine Victory Rally.” Hundreds of thousands of residents of South Beirut celebrated among the ruins, defiantly showing their resistance to the Israeli invasions. Those who died were revered as martyrs, and those who survived were proclaimed to be Muqawimun (the “resisters”). The rubble of houses and infrastructure did not matter, as it was a physical sacrifice to the resistance.
The second element of a war of exhaustion is sabr (“patience”). A word with both temporal and spiritual meanings throughout the region, patience is validated by the drift of the Trump administration’s own statements. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, a self-described opponent of “forever wars,” has not put a precise timetable on the Iran War but often refers to ending the war in a matter of weeks. President Trump, too, has been a longstanding critic of endless wars and prefers limited operations such as Operation Absolute Resolve, the mission to apprehend Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela.
Yet, this administration is not alone in its criticism of long wars. After the seemingly interminable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American people are not looking for another long “war of choice” in the Middle East. Add in the upcoming congressional elections, and the Iranians see the obvious wisdom in patience. The Iranians only need to listen to their Taliban neighbors, who told the American forces for years, “You have the watches. We have the time.”
Another reason for patience is the reported and potential costs of the Iran War, both in the consumption rates of precision weapons and the direct financial burdens. In the former, there is a limit to the number of weapons available, especially as the fight against Iran competes against other active operations, such as Ukraine, and potential contingencies such as Taiwan. Add to that the long lead time for producing replacement weapons. Each bomb used in the war may hit an Iranian target, but American and Israeli stockpiles are not infinite.
The Iranians clearly understand a war of exhaustion. For Tehran, resistance and patience are the best ways to stand up to the West: to win without losing, and to let unforgiving oil markets and impatient enemies dictate war strategy.
According to Politico, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made it clear that the spike in global oil prices was proof that Iran would not capitulate, arguing that the West is more worried about oil prices than about defeating Iran. If the United States and Israel thought the new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, would be more conciliatory, his first public statement declared a strategy of exhaustion. Iran would “continue our effective defense and make the enemy regret it. The lever of blocking the Strait of Hormuz must continue to be used.”
In 2002, then-President George Bush declared Iran part of “The Axis of Evil.” Soon after, Iran embraced the term “Axis of Resistance” to describe its network of proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza, and Yemen. “Resistance” is also the term used to explain the current war by Foreign Minister Araghchi, the late Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani, and others. It is not only a slogan but also a strategy.
As the US continues to expend its resources, its patience, and the pocketbooks of consumers worldwide, military and strategic planners must rethink the logic of trying to win an offensive war of attrition against a regime fighting a defensive war of exhaustion.
About the Author: Mark Kimmitt
Mark Kimmitt is a retired US Army brigadier general. He served as assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs and as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East post-retirement. Kimmitt graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point, earned an MBA from Harvard Business School, and received master’s degrees from the United States Army Command and General Staff College and the National Defense University.
No comments:
Post a Comment