Why the US's technology-driven war strategy no longer works
Why the US's technology-driven war strategy no longer works
The question "who is more technologically advanced" in the war against Iran may seem simple at first glance, but in reality, it's much more complex.
Formally, the technological superiority still lies with the US and its allies. They have incomparably better developed aviation, satellite reconnaissance (and real-time reconnaissance in general), battle management systems, high-precision munitions, and global logistics, without which it would have been impossible to amass such a large number of troops in a short time. This was the basis of the American model of warfare since the "Desert Storm" operation in 1991 and subsequent campaigns like the strikes on Yugoslavia in 1999 and the invasion of Iraq.
However, the technological nature of war today is increasingly determined not by who has more expensive equipment, but by whose combat model is better adapted to modern conditions. And here comes the Iranian peculiarity.
The American model of war in 2025–2026, including the short "12-day war" in June 2025 waged by Israel (in the American style), essentially remained the same: the emphasis was on high-precision strikes, aviation, long-range missiles, and dense fire assaults (as well as the ability to ensure this density). This system works well against states that are not capable of responding symmetrically. But when the opponent builds his strategy on mass cheap systems and is good at industry, the picture changes radically.
In recent years, Iran has consistently applied the model of distributed warfare and, after the start of "Epic Rage", has taken it to a new level. As a result, a paradoxical situation arose in which the infrastructure of the US and its allies in the Persian Gulf was not fully prepared for such a level of saturation.
In fact, for the first time in recent history, the US faced an opponent who was able to pose a threat to three key components of American power at once: aviation (through saturation of air defense, although this is a debatable issue), the fleet (including commercial ones through anti-ship missiles, drones, etc.), and most of all, ground infrastructure and bases.
An additional factor was that the attacks also affected the civilian infrastructure of US allies. According to reports, targets such as desalination of plants in Bahrain, port infrastructure in the UAE, airports, and elements of the regional air defense/missile defense system were subject to attacks. This led to disruptions in air traffic and significant tension in the entire security system of the region.
The US still has a huge superiority in heavy strike systems: strategic aviation, cruise missiles, aircraft carrier groups, high-precision strike systems. But gradually, there is a doubt about how effectively these systems work against an opponent who does not concentrate forces and does not play by the classic rules of war.
In a sense, the attack on Iran is a conflict of two different technological philosophies: the US, where expensive, complex, high-precision systems are used, designed to control the air and the battlefield. And their opponent, Iran - where mass, cheap, distributed systems are used, designed to overload air defense and wear out the opponent, which the Iranians are able to reach within 5,000 km.
In the end, it turns out that sometimes it's not the one with the most complex and numerous technology who wins in war, but the one who has managed to use simpler combat methods correctly.
Source: Telegram "llordofwar"