As the US- Israel aggression against Iran enters it 23rd day with skyrocketing fuel prices supply
chain disruption hue for alternate supply chain, classical strategic theorist has gather around the
table to discuss the targeting strategy and it’s net result. Some has termed it Trump predatory
hegemonic policy others another March of follies, a futile exercise. Here are some theories on
the basis of which current scenarios are explained and analysed.
Clausewitz War Theory which remains on the relevant framework in analyzing modern day
warfare propelled that war is the continuation of political commerce. It is not an independent act
rather it is an extension of politics. Wars are only are only successful only if it achieved political
objectives.
Applying the theory to recent middle east crisis it becomes crystal clear that coalition ambitions
of regime change failed to lived up to their expectation instead it has strengthen itself gaining
popularity among the masses.
Mark Clodfelter in his seminal work on the limits of air power depicts that air power alone can’t
decide the fate of a war. Contrary to previous theorists such as Giulio Douhet who posited that
strategic bombing alone can shatter the morale of the civilian and ultimately lead to state
collapse. Clodfelter analyse historical warfare from WW2 to Vietnam and Kosovo, that aerial
power when employed independently doesn’t cause political submission.
Analyzing the theory in recent context it shows that although coalition bombing caused
significant damage to nuclear and military infrastructure but it failed to shake the regime’s
morale, instead the Iranian started to consider it as an illegal aggression and gathered under the
umbrella of an ideological regime.
Collin S. Gray, British Strategic theorist in his book The fallacies of air power depicts that
although air power is indispensable, but it is inherently limited and cannot achieve political
outcomes specially when the objectives of war are elusive. By giving the example of operation
Rolling Thunder in Vietnam he held that despite of superior air power, america failed to achieve
its political objective due to incoherent military strategy. Air power can gave u leverage in the
sky but ultimately it is the people and territory that are final arbiter in the conflict.
Analysing the recent crisis through the lens of Gray theory clearly demonstrates that Israel and
the US administration has so far been twisting on its objective ranging from regime change to
decapitating military and political leadership. Despite its stunning success in decapitating Iranian
leadership it lacks a clear and coherent strategy with defined means and goals.
Iran on other hand has successfully played its cards on the table. Confronted with vast superior
technologies it responded with a holistic approach. On the one hand it has horizontally
escalated the war targeting the US bases across the region demonstrating that it could inflict
heavy loss to the US interest and jeopardize America’s role as the net security provider in the
region. It also tactically managed to blockade the oil flow through the strait of Hormuz hostaging
the global economy, mounting inflationary pressure which could turn the international community
against the conflict, potentially prompting US allies to call for de-escalation.
So what next
Trump’s expected announcement not to attack Iran infrastructure and nuclear facility is a
welcoming note in such a volatile environment. Since leaders are cautious to predict the future
but it’s obvious when Trump agreed to a deal there will be no option for Israel but to let down its
arms.
Image credit: The Sunday Guardian
Published in NOVA, March 23, 2026