All-Out War Against Iran: The 'Long Breath' Strategy in the Face of Military Superiority and Economic Bleeding

The region entered a dangerous historical turning point with the outbreak of direct military confrontation led by the American-Israeli alliance against Iran, which began with a series of intense air and missile strikes on the morning of February 28, 2026. This campaign, according to declared objectives, aims to undermine the existing regime in Tehran and redraw the geopolitical maps in the Middle East to serve the expansionist Israeli vision.

Despite the severe blow received by the Iranian leadership with the martyrdom of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Commander Mohammad Pakpour, Tehran quickly activated military contingency plans. Informed sources confirmed that the new leadership, now controlled by the Revolutionary Guard, decided to proceed with the 'open war' strategy, whose end is not determined by the aggressor.

On the ground, sources reported that the initial Iranian response included the launch of about 500 missiles and 2000 drones targeting strategic locations, causing confusion in air defense systems. Tehran is currently adopting the principle of decentralization in military decision-making, with powers delegated to mid-level ranks to ensure the continuity of defensive operations under any circumstances.

Economically, reports from the Israeli Ministry of Finance revealed a severe bleeding in the state budget, with weekly losses reaching 9.4 billion shekels (equivalent to 2.9 billion dollars). These heavy losses are due to the paralysis of economic activity, the closure of educational institutions, and a widespread call-up of reserve forces, which prompted the ministry to demand a reduction in alert levels to minimize damages.

On the American side, estimates from within Congress indicate that the cost of military operations against Iran exceeds one billion dollars daily. These exorbitant costs include complex air and naval operations, the consumption of smart munitions, and intercontinental logistical support, putting the Trump administration under increasing internal pressure as the conflict prolongs.

Global energy markets are experiencing severe turmoil, with oil prices jumping by 6% immediately after the disruption of energy exports from the Gulf region. This rise threatens the stability of the global economy and increases international opposition to the war, which many see as a blatant violation of international law and a threat to global peace.

The current Iranian strategy is based on the principle of 'steadfastness and endurance,' betting on the inability of the Israeli and American home fronts to withstand a long war of attrition. Analysts believe that technical and military superiority may achieve initial destructive gains, but it fails to decisively win battles against forces that rely on combat doctrine and unlimited popular endurance.

In a related context, the Israeli defense budget for 2026 increased to 121 billion shekels, after allocating additional emergency funds for security. This increase reflects the magnitude of the military challenge facing Israel amid expectations of the military campaign continuing for weeks or perhaps months, with the growing financial deficit exceeding 3.9%.

Regarding the Iranian leadership, the name Ahmad Vahidi emerged as the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, actively participating in all sovereign meetings to manage the crisis. The new leadership is working to prove that the absence of historical figures will not lead to the collapse of the regime, but may push towards a fiercer military cohesion in the face of existential threats.

Political readings of the scene indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking to build new international alliances that include regional and international powers such as India and Greece. This alliance aims to encircle Iranian influence and secure alternative trade routes, but these efforts clash with an explosive ground reality and unprecedented military escalation.

The historical experience of American wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan looms as a warning against the folly of getting involved in major regional conflicts whose end cannot be predicted. The ability to destroy infrastructure does not necessarily mean the ability to impose political will, especially in the face of a people with a deep belief in their right to sovereignty and national dignity.

The current war is not only managed by missiles and planes, but by a conflict of wills and the ability to bear human and material losses. As the war enters its second week, it appears that the Iranian bet on 'long breath' has begun to put the opposing front before difficult economic and political consequences that were not taken into account when the first shot was fired.

In light of this complex scene, warnings are increasing about the region sliding into comprehensive chaos whose effects may not be limited to the warring states only. The globally forming revolution against power politics and the American administration's disregard for international justice may create diplomatic pressures that are equivalent in their impact to the military pressure on the ground.

In conclusion, the coming days will determine the course of this existential conflict. Either the alliance succeeds in achieving its goals by changing the regime, or the attacking forces sink into Iran's shifting sands. Between this and that, the only constant remains that the map of the Middle East that Netanyahu wanted to change has today become the arena for the largest military confrontation in the twenty-first century.

The enormous military and technical superiority, against a just and long-suffering popular war, must retreat or face a blatant military defeat.