Gulf War 3.0: Preliminary Review of Military Strategies – Part I

The term "fog of war" refers to the information deficit that affects military commanders engaged in combat due to the uncertainties inherent in the fluid environment of combat. Today, with many armchair strategists pontificating on gaming the Gulf War 3.0, this fog is pervading TV studios, YouTube, and media channels, as they speculate on limited information or disinformation dished out by adversaries on both sides.

The sophistication of the disinformation campaigns run in the Gulf War 3.0 has made determining the course of operations and the trajectory ahead extremely challenging, thus going back to observing the basics rather than the day-to-day statements by leaders and their articulating cohorts appears to be the way ahead. With the media on both sides, the West with the eternal need to add grist to the mill and Iran to continue to portray the nation’s resolve, not much can be made out by the commoner who, too, is interested now in the war, given that it is impacting his daily bread even in far-off places such as Dhaka and Colombo.

This long introduction aimed to explain the form of a preliminary review, attempting to gain insights into the military strategy of the opposing forces in the War – the United States/Israel and Iran- to penetrate the confusion of modern information in war.

Strategy, classically, denotes an “Ends, Ways and Means” approach that facilitates the estimation of the trajectory ahead based on the tools of war used and their effectiveness.

An effective strategy is essential for winning a war, so would it be for Gulf War 3.0. Strategy also provides a long-term perspective – what the War achieved not just in the immediate but also in a broader time span of decades for a nation.

A military strategy forms part of the larger national strategy; yet, given that the principal tool employed by both sides in Gulf War 3.0 is the military, the focus here will be on the employment of armed forces and their use to achieve national objectives.

So what are the national objectives?

The national objectives of the two warring sides are clear – for the United States, neutralisation of Iran as a larger geopolitical threat based on the adversarial relations since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and many interim events that hardened the stand, such as the occupation of the US Embassy in Tehran. Over many presidents – Democrats as well as Republicans in the binary political scene in the US, Tehran has remained a primary long-term adversary. The strategy to limit Iran's potential has primarily been through political and economic sanctions. At the same time, even diplomacy was effectively used by President Barack Obama to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities through the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015. This lasted for three years, until May 2018, when President Donald Trump, in his first tenure, walked out of the same. Subsequent US administrations made feeble attempts, but they failed, with the current Trump administration opting for war.

For Israel, eliminating what is seen as an existential threat, given the proclaimed objective of Iranian leaders from time to time to destroy the “Zionist” state, is the central objective. An important facet of the same was to eliminate the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Hence, from Day 1, Israel was opposed to the JCPOA and has been consistently looking for an option to denigrate Iranian nuclear capabilities, employing decapacitation of key nuclear scientists and enrichment potential through cyberattacks, amongst other means.

Flowing out of the US and Israel objectives for Iran, the national aim can be summed up in the word most frequently used by the departed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and repeated by his son and successor, Mojtaba, “Resistance,” to all things American and in some forms Western and elimination of Israel as a State.

This has been the philosophy built by the “Khamanei State” in Iran for many decades, and which is being sustained now.

Resistance has many components, from creating an indigenously sustainable economy to rejecting the idea of individual freedom of dress for women – the hijab.

In terms of the economy, resistance implied working to mitigate the impact of U.S. sanctions.

In terms of the military, Resistance implies moving beyond reliance on traditional military hardware, ranging from fighter aircraft, tanks, and guns to missiles and drones – the sustenance and modernisation of which were denied due to sanctions, creating asymmetry.

Politically, resistance implied ruthlessly curbing dissent. Finally, Resistance also implies martyrdom, which played an important role in the ongoing war with Ayatollah Khamenei, who preferred not to remain incognito, as any other leader facing the threat of elimination on February 28 would.

Resistance and resilience provide the essence of Iran’s strategy. They are evident in the ongoing war, which has the US President confounded, who had expected Iran to capitulate on the assassination of the Ayatollah to resist for over a month now. Mr Trump was so angry that he resorted to expletives unbecoming of a world leader of his stature.

This sets the stage for the military strategy for Gulf War 3.0.