Iran's war of attrition turns tables as US, Israel face growing costs

Three weeks in, the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran has not delivered the swift knockout many expected. What started as a bold push toward leadership change has morphed into a grinding contest of wills.

Iran, battered but unbowed, is turning endurance into leverage, imposing real economic and political pain on its adversaries while holding its own system together. As the conflict drags on, one conclusion is becoming clearer: time may be working more in Tehran's favor than in that of Washington or Tel Aviv.

The war has seen intensifying US-Israeli airstrikes on Iranian military and leadership targets, including the confirmed killings of security chief Ali Larijani and Basij commander Gholamreza Soleimani on Tuesday, but Tehran continues its retaliatory strikes and blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, pushing oil prices steadily higher. Mojtaba Khamenei, who became Iran's new supreme leader last week, has held a firm line of resistance, signaling a clear intent to prolong the fight.

Tehran's resilience

Tehran's growing confidence in the conflict stems from the clerical establishment's unexpected resilience. Despite sustained strikes across the Islamic Republic, there have been no major defections or fractures within the leadership, while the Revolutionary Guards and other core institutions continue to maintain tight control nationwide.

In the meantime, the succession after Ali Khamenei's death unfolded relatively orderly, as reported frictions between moderate and hardline factions quickly gave way to apparent unity once Mojtaba Khamenei was confirmed.

Before the war, Iran endured months of intense nationwide unrest in late 2025 and early 2026, driven by years of economic decline and soaring inflation. Those protests, though widespread, did not morph into large-scale uprising after hostilities began. Instead, large rallies supporting the system and Tehran's new leadership revealed domestic cohesion.

These developments have not gone unnoticed, with US intelligence assessments describing the system as "still intact" and not facing imminent overthrow. Analysts have described hopes of toppling Iran's leadership without a ground deployment as "wishful thinking." The country's foundational structures, forged through decades of sanctions and external pressure, are proving far more durable than many expected.

War of attrition

At the heart of Iran's approach is a deliberate war of attrition. Tehran believes it can absorb and outlast the costs longer than its adversaries for several structural reasons.

First, years of sanctions have conditioned both the economy and society to endure prolonged hardship. Residents have developed coping mechanisms, parallel supply networks and a collective narrative of resistance that frames endurance as a form of victory.

Second, Iran's large territory, dispersed population and asymmetric capabilities – cheaper missiles and drones as well as allied groups across the region – allow it to stretch out the conflict without needing to match US or Israeli conventional firepower.

Third, Tehran's approach is grounded in the belief that Washington's decisions are constrained by electoral cycles and public opinion, while Israel's economy and reservist system face mounting strain from extended operations.

In short, Iran is betting that time is on its side. Officially, Iran frames its military responses as purely defensive, reiterating that its actions are aimed at defending national sovereignty and forcing "the aggressors to bear the real price of their illegal campaign." By restricting transit through the Strait of Hormuz – a vital chokepoint for roughly one-fifth of global oil – and conducting strikes that have damaged oil infrastructure sites in Gulf states, Iran signals that continued aggression will impose severe global economic consequences.

Turning tables

The strategy is already turning the tables. What was supposed to be a short, decisive operation has become a prolonged drain. Each additional week forces the US and Israel to expend enormous resources – precision munitions, intelligence assets and financial costs – while achieving no clear military breakthrough.

Iran's ability to keep the conflict alive without collapsing has shifted the momentum from military dominance to political endurance. The longer the war drags on, the more the original goal of leadership change recedes, and the more the US and Israel must justify the growing price tag at home and abroad.

The political and reputational damage to the United States and Israel is becoming impossible to ignore. Oil price volatilities and the partial blockage of the Strait of Hormuz has triggered what many economists already call the most serious petroleum crisis in years. Global markets are jittery, but the direct pain lands hardest on the parties sustaining the campaign. Both countries' financial costs of war are climbing steeply: billions spent on air operations, interceptor missiles and force sustainment, with no end in sight.

In the US, anti-war sentiment is rising sharply. Public polls show growing fatigue with another Middle East conflict, especially amid domestic economic pressures linked to higher energy prices. Voices within the political establishment openly question the wisdom of launching operations without a viable exit strategy.

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's explicit goal of leadership change lies in ruins for now. Despite enjoying widespread support among Israelis, his pledge to secure "total victory" might backfire if the campaign fails to deliver meaningful gains and ends up strengthening hardliners in Iran – a trajectory already gaining momentum.

Internationally, the picture is equally challenging. The United Nations and numerous governments have issued strong condemnations of what they see as illegitimate actions. Even Washington's traditional allies are showing reluctance. Trump's recent public call for NATO partners to help secure the Strait of Hormuz was firmly rejected – a clear sign of widening cracks within the transatlantic alliance. Gulf states, caught between damaged oil sites and the need for stability, are quietly urging de-escalation rather than deeper involvement.

The US and Israel, despite superior military technology, now face the harder test: sustaining domestic support and international legitimacy as the conflict stretches from weeks into potentially months. In modern warfare, the side that can endure longer often dictates the eventual terms. By choosing attrition over capitulation, Iran appears to have placed that advantage squarely on its side of the ledger.