Iranian writer Reza Raeisi argues that targeting a country’s vital infrastructure represents one of the most insidious tactics a military power can adopt, and ultimately reflects failure in executing effective battlefield strategies. Writing for Jamaran, he emphasises that amid the intensity of ongoing developments and rapid battlefield shifts, it is necessary to step back and examine the broader trajectory of the war. Only by doing so can the direction of both sides and the overall path of the conflict be properly understood.
According to Raeisi, by day 28 of the war, the United States and Israel had entered a new phase, shifting their focus toward targeting Iran’s national infrastructure. This included attacks on steel production facilities, electrical networks, refineries, academic and research institutions, and transport infrastructure such as the B1 bridge in Karaj. At the same time, Donald Trump intensified his rhetoric, escalating threats and even warning of pushing Iran “back to the Stone Age”.
Infrastructure Targeting Signals Strategic Breakdown
The article questions whether this shift reflects a coherent strategy or calculated planning. It concludes that after failing to achieve its initial objectives, the US leadership resorted to desperate measures driven by the absence of a clear strategic direction.
Striking vital infrastructure, Raeisi argues, is not only a tactic aimed at weakening societal resilience, but also a clear indicator of operational failure on the battlefield. By day 35 of the conflict, Iran reportedly managed within 24 hours to target and down two highly advanced fighter jets for the first time. This development, according to the analysis, dealt a serious blow to one of the United States’ key operational advantages.
At the same time, Israeli infrastructure and US interests across the region have come under intensified Iranian attacks. International media reports indicate that the pace of strikes has not diminished but has increased. In this context, the campaign targeting infrastructure has not only failed to achieve its objectives but has also produced counterproductive outcomes.
Internal Divisions and Diplomatic Resistance
The article highlights growing internal instability within the US military establishment. A wave of dismissals has reportedly affected senior leadership, with 12 high ranking generals removed, including the head of the US Army’s ground forces. These developments coincide with escalating threats of a potential ground offensive inside Iran, pointing to deep disagreements between military strategists and what the article describes as a war driven political leadership.
On the diplomatic front, The New York Times reported opposition from China, Russia, and France to a draft resolution submitted by Bahrain that would enable military intervention related to the Strait of Hormuz. Notably, France’s position alongside Russia and China suggests that even traditional Western allies are unwilling to endorse or legitimise further military escalation.
A War of Attrition Taking Shape
In contrast to the political and media rhetoric surrounding infrastructure strikes, the broader trajectory of the war appears to be moving in a different direction. According to the analysis, developments on the ground increasingly align with Iran’s strategic approach, which centres on a prolonged war of attrition across multiple dimensions.
While acknowledging that attacks on infrastructure are painful and carry significant human and economic costs, the article concludes that Iran has successfully absorbed the initial wave of assaults. It has established a resilient framework across both offensive and defensive fronts, allowing it to sustain momentum over time.
The broader indicators, when viewed beyond immediate battlefield developments, suggest a gradual shift in balance. As the conflict continues, the dynamics appear to increasingly favour Iran, with time becoming a critical factor reinforcing its strategic position.
