Recent military developments around Iran have been marked by their deeply asymmetric nature. This conflict significantly differed from classical confrontations both in terms of the balance of power and the strategic behavior of the sides. This view is shared by political analyst Sergey Minasyan.
Asymmetry Between Technology and Will
According to Minasyan, on one side stood the world’s most technologically advanced power along with its equally developed regional partners — Israel and several Arab countries — while on the other side was Iran, which demonstrated one of the key features of asymmetric warfare: the willingness to accept the cost of war and the capacity to endure.
He notes that such an approach has also been characteristic of other historical asymmetric conflicts, such as the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan. However, in Iran’s case, this factor is reinforced by the country’s religious and philosophical characteristics, particularly the ideas inherent in Shiite Islam, which strengthen a culture of resistance and self-sacrifice.
An Institutional State and a “Corporate” System
The political analyst also highlights the structure of Iran’s state system, noting that it differs significantly from many countries in the Middle East. Unlike personalized regimes, Iran operates a deeply institutionalized system, which Minasyan describes as a “state-corporation.”
A key role in this system is played by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which, in his assessment, has managed to maintain stability at this stage — neither collapsing nor being defeated. According to Minasyan, during the first 40 days of the conflict, Iran can consider this outcome a form of victory.
Military Success Without Political Results
At the same time, Minasyan notes that although several declared military objectives appeared to have been achieved (including delaying Iran’s nuclear program), the political results have been far more limited.
According to him, one of the main objectives — regime change in Iran — was not achieved. Moreover, contrary to expectations, the regime within Iran has become more consolidated and more anti-American than before. Additionally, Iran has managed to create new global risks for its opponents, including the threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Minasyan emphasizes that Iran’s military-political elite, despite often being perceived as ideological or “fanatical,” in reality demonstrates a high degree of pragmatism in both domestic and foreign policy.
Different Interpretations of Victory
Commenting on the U.S. position, the analyst does not rule out that Washington may continue to claim “unprecedented victories,” even if key political goals have not been achieved. “Every war contains a propaganda element, which is exactly what we are witnessing,” he noted.
According to Minasyan, this conflict highlights the complex nature of modern warfare, where military and political outcomes often do not align, and the concept of “victory” becomes relative and multi-layered.