Israeli-American War Against Iran: Myth and Reality
By La Rédaction · Port-au-Prince
· 4 min read · Updated 24 April 2026
Translated from French — AI-assisted and reviewed by the editorial team. The French version is authoritative. Read the original · About our translation policy
Since February 28, 2026, the international situation has been marked by a major escalation involving strikes by the Israeli-American coalition against Iran. This development comes as indirect negotiations, particularly under Omani mediation, seemed to be progressing towards a compromise. Some observers believe that this intervention reflects a strategic convergence between Washington and Tel Aviv in the face of security challenges related to Iran, while others see it as an abrupt rupture of a still fragile diplomatic process.
As in the case of Venezuela, US President Donald Trump seemed to expect Iran to adopt a similar posture, following the supposed decapitation of its leadership structure. Such an interpretation, however, reflects a profound misunderstanding of the nature of this millennia-old state.
The Islamic Republic of Iran draws its resilience from its history, its institutional structure, and a strong ideological dimension, particularly Shiism, which fuels a culture of resistance and sacrifice.
In reality, Iran had prepared for such an eventuality. On the one hand, by adopting a decentralized command allowing provincial commanders to act autonomously, without awaiting central approval. This logic corresponds to what analysts call a "mosaic" defense doctrine, based on the dispersion and redundancy of capabilities.
The Business Standard +1
On the other hand, all strategic positions have been duplicated, or even tripled, to ensure immediate continuity of command in the event of the elimination of leaders. This mechanism aims to prevent any decision-making paralysis.
Finally, Iran has developed a vast network of underground military infrastructures, often referred to as "missile cities," designed to withstand air strikes and support a prolonged conflict. In addition to a well-honed military strategy, the Islamic Republic of Iran reportedly carried out strikes targeting US military bases in the region, particularly in Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. This dynamic highlights the security dependence of the main Gulf monarchies on the American military presence in their territory.
These states, often considered pillars of rentier capitalism based on hydrocarbons and a consumer economy, have structured their security model around this external protection. However, the conflict tends to show the limits of this strategy, exposing their vulnerability in the event of a major regional escalation.
Furthermore, the Islamic Republic of Iran possesses a central geostrategic leverage point: the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of the world's oil transits. Any disruption or closure of this strategic passage automatically leads to a global increase in energy prices, recalling, to some extent, the systemic effects of the 1973 oil shock.
In this context, a strategic paradox emerges: faced with tensions in energy markets, the United States — under the Donald Trump administration — might be forced to partially ease certain sanctions targeting Iranian and Russian oil, in order to stabilize global supply and contain price increases. Despite intense bombings carried out by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the latter adopts a strategy of proportional retaliation, while tending towards escalation when its adversaries cross certain thresholds.
However, caution is advised regarding certain claims. The idea that Iran shot down several F-35 Lightning II aircraft, known for their stealth capabilities, as well as "Raptor" type drones, is not reliably confirmed at this stage and should be treated with reservation.
That said, the conflict highlights a structural opposition between two military models. On one side, the American military-industrial complex relies on advanced, sophisticated, and particularly expensive technologies. On the other, Iran favors an asymmetric approach based on relatively inexpensive equipment, easy to mass-produce, and nonetheless effective.
It is thus a true war of equation between cost and effectiveness: Iran seeks to compensate for its technological lag through mass production, resilience, and resource optimization, while the United States relies on technological superiority and precision.
This war highlights certain tensions within the Western camp. Countries like Spain, Italy, and France express reservations about direct involvement in this conflict, which some consider legally and politically questionable. These divergences reflect different sensitivities regarding military intervention and international crisis management.
In this context, Donald Trump's positions regarding NATO fuel the debate on the alliance's cohesion, particularly concerning burden-sharing and military commitments. However, the hypothesis of an effective US withdrawal from NATO remains highly uncertain and would constitute a major strategic rupture.
Furthermore, Iran appears to be using the Strait of Hormuz as a differentiated geopolitical lever. By modulating the conditions for ship passage according to their flag, it seeks to introduce a logic of distinction between states perceived as hostile and those adopting a more neutral or distant posture regarding the conflict. This type of strategy falls within a logic of indirect pressure, aiming to influence international positions without systematically resorting to direct military confrontation.
Thus, beyond armed confrontation, the conflict reveals a broader recomposition of political, strategic, and economic balances, both within the West and in global power dynamics. According to some observers, this conflict highlights the West's contradictions regarding its own norms, as well as the sometimes opportunistic logics of the various actors involved. It also reveals the resilience of a millennia-old people, capable of facing technologically superior armies.
By relying on a clearly defined strategy and a coherent overall vision, the Islamic Republic of Iran demonstrates its ability to conduct a conflict based on its own strengths, adapting its means to the constraints imposed by the balance of power. Wilfrid Joseph
The Islamic Republic of Iran draws its resilience from its history, its institutional structure, and a strong ideological dimension, particularly Shiism, which fuels a culture of resistance and sacrifice.
In reality, Iran had prepared for such an eventuality. On the one hand, by adopting a decentralized command allowing provincial commanders to act autonomously, without awaiting central approval. This logic corresponds to what analysts call a "mosaic" defense doctrine, based on the dispersion and redundancy of capabilities.
The Business Standard +1
On the other hand, all strategic positions have been duplicated, or even tripled, to ensure immediate continuity of command in the event of the elimination of leaders. This mechanism aims to prevent any decision-making paralysis.
Finally, Iran has developed a vast network of underground military infrastructures, often referred to as "missile cities," designed to withstand air strikes and support a prolonged conflict. In addition to a well-honed military strategy, the Islamic Republic of Iran reportedly carried out strikes targeting US military bases in the region, particularly in Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. This dynamic highlights the security dependence of the main Gulf monarchies on the American military presence in their territory.
These states, often considered pillars of rentier capitalism based on hydrocarbons and a consumer economy, have structured their security model around this external protection. However, the conflict tends to show the limits of this strategy, exposing their vulnerability in the event of a major regional escalation.
Furthermore, the Islamic Republic of Iran possesses a central geostrategic leverage point: the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of the world's oil transits. Any disruption or closure of this strategic passage automatically leads to a global increase in energy prices, recalling, to some extent, the systemic effects of the 1973 oil shock.
In this context, a strategic paradox emerges: faced with tensions in energy markets, the United States — under the Donald Trump administration — might be forced to partially ease certain sanctions targeting Iranian and Russian oil, in order to stabilize global supply and contain price increases. Despite intense bombings carried out by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the latter adopts a strategy of proportional retaliation, while tending towards escalation when its adversaries cross certain thresholds.
However, caution is advised regarding certain claims. The idea that Iran shot down several F-35 Lightning II aircraft, known for their stealth capabilities, as well as "Raptor" type drones, is not reliably confirmed at this stage and should be treated with reservation.
That said, the conflict highlights a structural opposition between two military models. On one side, the American military-industrial complex relies on advanced, sophisticated, and particularly expensive technologies. On the other, Iran favors an asymmetric approach based on relatively inexpensive equipment, easy to mass-produce, and nonetheless effective.
It is thus a true war of equation between cost and effectiveness: Iran seeks to compensate for its technological lag through mass production, resilience, and resource optimization, while the United States relies on technological superiority and precision.
This war highlights certain tensions within the Western camp. Countries like Spain, Italy, and France express reservations about direct involvement in this conflict, which some consider legally and politically questionable. These divergences reflect different sensitivities regarding military intervention and international crisis management.
In this context, Donald Trump's positions regarding NATO fuel the debate on the alliance's cohesion, particularly concerning burden-sharing and military commitments. However, the hypothesis of an effective US withdrawal from NATO remains highly uncertain and would constitute a major strategic rupture.
Furthermore, Iran appears to be using the Strait of Hormuz as a differentiated geopolitical lever. By modulating the conditions for ship passage according to their flag, it seeks to introduce a logic of distinction between states perceived as hostile and those adopting a more neutral or distant posture regarding the conflict. This type of strategy falls within a logic of indirect pressure, aiming to influence international positions without systematically resorting to direct military confrontation.
Thus, beyond armed confrontation, the conflict reveals a broader recomposition of political, strategic, and economic balances, both within the West and in global power dynamics. According to some observers, this conflict highlights the West's contradictions regarding its own norms, as well as the sometimes opportunistic logics of the various actors involved. It also reveals the resilience of a millennia-old people, capable of facing technologically superior armies.
By relying on a clearly defined strategy and a coherent overall vision, the Islamic Republic of Iran demonstrates its ability to conduct a conflict based on its own strengths, adapting its means to the constraints imposed by the balance of power. Wilfrid Joseph
