The confrontation between the United States and Iran is no longer measured solely by the number of strikes or the expanding range of targets. It is increasingly defined by each side’s ability to sustain a prolonged war of attrition at the lowest possible cost.
Washington is reshaping its deterrence tools, while Tehran is betting on time to undermine military and economic pressure and keep the door open to negotiations under different terms.
This shift comes as the United States resumes air strikes against targets inside Iran and reimposes a naval blockade on Iranian ports. Tehran, meanwhile, has reinforced its defences around the Bushehr nuclear facility and announced that it had targeted the US Al-Azraq base in Jordan.
The reciprocal escalation reflects a transition into a more complex phase of the confrontation.
From Tactical Strikes to Disabling Iranian Capabilities
Military and strategic analyst Colonel Nidal Abu Zeid said the US Central Command’s description of the latest strikes as “lethal” carries clear operational significance.
According to Abu Zeid, the wording indicates that Washington is moving beyond tactical targeting towards a plan aimed at disabling Iranian capabilities by weakening surveillance systems, degrading naval assets and reshaping the operational theatre.
He said this shift is also reflected in the increasing number of strikes and their expanding geographical scope.
The number of targets reportedly rose gradually from 80 to 90 and then to 140, while operations moved from Iran’s coastal strip towards the country’s interior. This suggests an effort to widen the pressure zone and disrupt Iranian air defences.
From a political perspective, Abbas Aslani, a researcher at the Middle East Strategic Studies Centre, argued that Washington is not currently seeking a comprehensive regional war.
Instead, it is attempting to increase pressure on Iran in order to extract concessions over the Strait of Hormuz and the nuclear programme, while keeping Israel outside the circle of direct confrontation.
Aslani said the current crisis also reflects a deepening deficit of trust that has accumulated over recent years.
Tehran views the renewed military pressure as an extension of the United States’ previous withdrawal from the nuclear agreement. This makes any new negotiations more complicated and reduces the prospect of reaching a stable settlement in the near term.
Washington’s War of Attrition
Former US congressman Tom Garrett said Washington’s strategy continues to be guided by a fixed objective: preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon while avoiding a wider war.
For that reason, US strikes are focusing more heavily on capabilities that threaten navigation through the Strait of Hormuz than on Iranian state institutions.
Garrett said the latest attacks suggest that Washington is increasingly targeting production facilities and military infrastructure that enable Iran to threaten international shipping.
The aim is to weaken Iran’s ability to sustain the escalation while maintaining a level of pressure that does not trigger a broad military confrontation.
Hosni Abidi, professor of international relations at the University of Geneva, said the current phase reflects the use of military force to improve negotiating terms rather than terminate diplomacy altogether.
The memorandum of understanding between the two sides, he argued, remains a possible framework to which they could return if both conclude that continued escalation has become more costly than reaching a settlement.
Abidi said Washington has also expanded its pressure tools.
The Strait of Hormuz is no longer the only bargaining card. The United States has added the threat of striking undeclared nuclear sites while tightening the naval blockade, in an attempt to reshape the political and military balance of pressure.
Asymmetric Warfare at Lower Cost
This shift is also visible on the battlefield, where the United States is increasingly relying on asymmetric warfare tactics.
US Central Command announced that it had used one-way unmanned boats to strike facilities at the port of Bandar Abbas, adopting a tactic that allows high-value maritime targets to be hit at a lower operational cost.
Abu Zeid described these methods as an extension of “sixth-generation warfare”.
They combine unmanned boats, drones and precision-guided missiles within an integrated targeting system based on the sequence of searching, fixing, tracking and then striking the target.
This approach, he said, increases operational efficiency while reducing the volume of munitions consumed.
Abu Zeid added that the change followed the extensive use of precision munitions during the previous confrontation, which pushed Washington to adjust its operational doctrine.
The United States has moved towards what military planners describe as the “rationalisation of targeting”, using cheaper and more precise systems to preserve its strategic stockpiles.
Garrett agreed that economic considerations have become a central component of the US strategy.
Drones and unmanned boats allow Washington to intensify military pressure without exhausting its resources, giving the Trump administration greater capacity to continue operations over a longer period.
Iran’s Bet on Endurance
Aslani said Iran is not relying on direct military superiority.
Instead, Tehran is seeking to frustrate the objectives of US pressure by combining military endurance with the use of energy supplies and the Strait of Hormuz as leverage, while preventing Washington from forcing concessions through military pressure.
Abidi warned that the continuation of this equation would affect more than the two parties to the confrontation.
Its consequences could extend to the global economy and Gulf security, particularly as maritime routes and defensive infrastructure face growing pressure, with accompanying repercussions for global energy markets.
Abu Zeid argued that the United States is attempting to establish a new pattern of warfare based on selective, low-cost strikes.
At this stage, Washington is also seeking to keep Israel outside direct confrontation in order to avoid transforming the conflict into a comprehensive war that could undermine its operational and political objectives.
The current confrontation therefore resembles a race against time more than a conventional war.
Washington is testing the effectiveness of deterrence through a carefully calculated campaign of attrition, while Tehran is betting on prolonging the conflict and preventing its opponent from converting military superiority into lasting political or negotiating gains.
