Balance of the American–Iranian War Strategy: Visible Strength and Unpredictable Tactics

As the entire world watches with tension, the hands of the war clock continue to move.

By Sadeesh Krishnapillai

At the inaugural meeting of a peace council he himself appointed to uphold global peace, the American President issues a warning.

Ten more days. Within that time, Iran must reach an agreement with the United States. Failing that, “something bad will happen” — that is the essence of the warning.

The day after American and Iranian diplomats concluded talks in Geneva aimed at resolving their differences, Donald Trump uttered threatening words in Washington.

As of the time this article is being written, nothing drastic has occurred. Yet, with the ticking sound of the war clock — “tick… tick…” — tension continues to intensify.

On both the land and sea surrounding Iran, military strength is being visibly demonstrated through the deployment of warships and advanced weaponry.

These ships are not mere naval vessels; they are floating fortresses. The United States has stationed 12 naval vessels in Middle Eastern waters, including the world’s largest aircraft carrier, USS Abraham Lincoln, and another carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford.

In addition, F-35 and F-22 fighter jets stand ready. There is also the Aegis defense shield, capable of intercepting incoming missiles or artillery shells.

Looking at all this, one might superficially conclude that the United States possesses the capacity to monitor threats closely, detect dangers, and launch rapid strikes.

However, it cannot be ignored that over the past forty years, the Islamic Republic of Iran has systematically prepared itself to confront precisely such a situation.

Unlike the United States, Iran does not rely solely on conventional military strength. Instead, it operates through a strategy of “Asymmetric Deterrence.”

This is a crucial concept. Even without matching the enemy’s strength, war can be prevented by creating fear that massive damage could be inflicted in return.

Iran’s military capability is structured in multiple layers, much of it invisible to the outside world.

If an enemy were to attack, the strategy is to ensure that the consequences would be so devastating that even the decision to attack would seem too risky.

Although Iran’s air force relies on older equipment and may not appear overwhelmingly powerful, the country compensates through its so-called “missile cities.”

This became visibly evident during U.S. strikes against Iran in June last year.

In response, Iran deployed the Fattah-2 missile — a hypersonic missile capable of exceeding the speed of sound and penetrating advanced air defense systems.

The greatest challenge faced by U.S. aircraft carriers does not come in the form of a single such weapon. Rather, it emerges through a “Saturation Strategy.”

No matter how advanced a country’s defense systems are, they can intercept only a limited number of missiles at one time.

Exploiting this weakness, a saturation strategy involves launching hundreds of drones and missiles simultaneously — overwhelming the enemy’s defensive capacity.

Iran possesses large numbers of Shahed-136 drones along with various missile systems. Launching them in a single coordinated wave forms a core component of Iran’s war doctrine. In the event of such an assault, even powerful American destroyers could struggle to cope.

No matter how massive and modern the giant may be, Goliath still fears the hidden weapon of David.

However strong an elephant (the United States) may be, if thousands of bees (drones/missiles) attack at once, it cannot defend itself effectively.

Geographically, Iran’s location is advantageous in the event of war — especially the Strait of Hormuz, which can be described as a strategic blessing.

Twenty percent of the world’s fuel shipments pass through this narrow waterway. By controlling it, Iran can exert influence over the global economy, thereby reinforcing its own security.

On the other hand, “satellite sovereignty” is another Iranian strength. Using its own satellite capabilities — as well as those of allied eastern nations — Iran monitors American movements. This includes the use of China’s BeiDou technology.

The confrontation between Iran and the United States is not purely military; it is also political.

If Donald Trump moves unilaterally to attack Iran, he faces strong opposition both domestically and from allied nations.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives openly question whether he even has the authority to launch such an attack, citing the War Powers Act of 1973.

Britain has reportedly denied the United States permission to use its bases for launching an attack on Iran.

As the days of Trump’s ten-day deadline pass, it is clear that U.S.–Iran tensions are evolving into a battle of strategic doctrines.

Diplomatically, the United States relies on visible technological superiority to pressure Iran into submission.

Iran, in contrast, depends largely on invisible and unpredictable defensive arrangements. It has firmly embedded the perception that any attack against it would destabilize the entire region in catastrophic ways.

In this war, the crucial question is not who possesses the larger ships. Rather, it is which side can endure and sustain itself over a prolonged conflict.

One may recall a post by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on the platform X: however dangerous the world’s largest warship may be, what truly matters is the weapon capable of sinking it into the depths of the sea.

The coming days are critical. Will the “bad outcome” Trump warned about materialize? Or will the fear of asymmetric shadow warfare force a different kind of uneasy peace?

Only time will decide.

Online version of an article written for the February 20, 2026 weekend edition of Veerakesari.