Continuous missile and drone attacks and economic pressure: Has Iran trapped the US and Israel in a long war?

  

Continuous missile and drone attacks and economic pressure: Has Iran trapped the US and Israel in a long war?

 

Iranian officials have always stressed that Iran is prepared to prolong the ongoing conflict, and with this message they are trying to send a message of resistance and preparation for a long war.

Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, announced on March 2 that Iran is preparing for a long war. And “Iran, unlike the United States, has prepared itself for a long war.” He also ruled out the possibility of negotiations.

Iranian officials have also said that Iran’s response to the “aggression” is not limited to a specific time frame, indicating that the conflict could continue for months or even longer.

On March 8, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said, “We definitely do not want a ceasefire. We must punish the aggressor.” He stressed that the country is engaged in an existential war with Israel.

Brigadier General Reza Talaynik, spokesman for the Defense Ministry, also said that Iran can maintain an “offensive defense” many times greater than the enemy expects. He added that Iran has deliberately phased its weapons deployment, saving some of the more advanced capabilities for later stages rather than using all of them at once.

What is Iran’s strategy?

Some analysts say Iran’s approach is based on a strategy of sabotage, with Iranian forces launching successive waves of missiles and drones at Israeli targets and U.S. military interests in the region.

These attacks serve several purposes. First, they force U.S. and Israeli air defense systems to activate to intercept incoming missiles. Systems like the Patriot and THAAD are technologically advanced, but they are very expensive and limited in number, and in many cases the cost of each interception is much greater than the missile or drone destroyed.

Second, the continued attacks could strain the country’s interceptor missile stockpiles, logistics networks, and military readiness. According to the Washington Post, U.S. forces engaged in the war used precision weapons and air defense missiles at high speed in just the first week of operations. However, analysts say that such a large-scale use of weapons is also exposing significant weaknesses in the supply chain.

Iranian officials say their arsenal is more robust and the armed forces can “continue an intense war for at least six months at current rates.”

Several commanders have also said that the missile is manufactured entirely domestically, and with multiple production sites and a large stockpile, Iran has the ability to sustain attacks for a long period of time.

Iran appears to be spreading out attacks over time so that the opposing side has to defend itself continuously, rather than facing a single wave of sudden and decisive attacks. This strategy reflects a broader doctrine that Iran has developed over decades to counter the military superiority of major powers.

After the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, Iran invested heavily in a strategy of asymmetric warfare. This approach focused on resources that could challenge more powerful forces without conventional battlefield superiority. The goal is not necessarily to completely defeat a strong enemy, but rather to make any military conflict costly, protracted, and unpredictable.

What are the economic implications?

A prolonged conflict could have significant economic repercussions both within Iran and globally.

A major disruption to energy supplies in the region could threaten to raise prices for global consumers and businesses. Under normal circumstances, about a fifth of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, but more than a week after the war began, the narrow waterway has been virtually shut down.

Security concerns and airspace closures since the conflict began have also affected trade routes in the region.

The economy inside Iran is also under pressure. An economy weakened by years of international sanctions is now under further strain from rising military spending, currency instability and disruptions to trade and services during the war.

Analysts warn that if the conflict continues, it could lead to a sharp economic downturn and internal unrest, which could threaten the country’s stability.

Iranian authorities are presenting citizen participation in defense and mobilization during war as a national responsibility, while also trying to maintain popular support at home.

What are the political risks?

The longer the conflict drags on, the greater the political risks for all parties.

Countries in the region, particularly in the Persian Gulf, where Iran says it is targeting “offensive assets and bases,” have expressed concern about the possibility of a wider war and economic devastation, and some have called for a resumption of diplomatic efforts.

At the same time, continued conflict could alter the makeup of regional alliances and turn neighboring countries into Iran’s adversaries.

For Iran, continuing the war means balancing military strategy, economic resilience, and domestic stability. In contrast, the challenge for the United States and Israel may be to manage the global financial, political, and strategic costs of a war while maintaining military operations.

For Iran, continuing the war means balancing military strategy, economic slowdown, and domestic stability. In contrast, the challenge for the United States and Israel is to effectively manage military operations as well as the global financial, political, and strategic costs of this prolonged confrontation.