AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Reports and analyses published in British and American newspapers signal a significant shift in the nature of the confrontation between the United States and Iran, where the conflict is no longer limited to direct military engagement but has extended into more complex arenas such as military technology, the attrition of weapons stockpiles, and the redefinition of the regional deterrence balance.
A report by the British website iNews, citing former CIA analysts, says there are serious concerns about Iran's success in recovering and examining advanced American and Israeli munitions that either failed to explode or crashed on the battlefield.
According to this report, Tehran is now engaged in reverse-engineering operations on weapons such as Tomahawk cruise missiles, Reaper drones, JASSM missiles, and GBU-57 bunker-busters to understand their structure or produce similar indigenous versions.
These analysts believe the main risk is not limited to Iran's internal efforts but also includes the possibility of Tehran receiving technical assistance from Russia and China—an issue that could lead to the exposure of secrets related to guidance systems, electronic warfare, and stealth technology.
Although the complete replication of these systems is considered difficult, experts have warned that even understanding the operational patterns of these weapons could enable Iran to develop countermeasures within a few months—an issue that would narrow the technological gap between Tehran and Washington.
These concerns align with an analysis by Dan Sabbagh, the defense and security editor of The Guardian. He writes that the escalation of American attacks has failed to achieve strategic objectives in curbing Iran's capabilities.
Sabbagh, citing intelligence estimates, claimed that the widespread airstrikes had destroyed only a portion of Iran's arsenal, with about half of its missile and drone stockpiles remaining active and capable of threatening shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
In this context, this analysis concurs with the assessment of military experts that any attempt at a ground invasion of Iran is unrealistic. On the other hand, targeting civilian infrastructure also carries extensive political and legal repercussions.
Simultaneously, the United States faces pressure from dwindling stocks of precision munitions such as Tomahawk missiles and air defense systems.
In another analysis in The Guardian, Fawaz Gerges, a professor of international relations, described Donald Trump's war against Iran as a strategic error and said the result has been counterproductive.
In his view, Iran has emerged from this confrontation with greater confidence and has been able to use its capacity to threaten energy routes in the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab as a strategic pressure tool—a tool even more effective than the nuclear file.
Gerges adds that the American attacks caused Iran to shift its military doctrine from strategic patience to a more aggressive, multi-front approach. They also pushed some regional allies of Washington toward seeking new security balances with powers such as China.
Robert Fox, an analyst for The Independent, shares a similar assessment, believing that Donald Trump has become trapped in a prolonged war with no clear exit.
He writes that the announced ceasefire does not reflect field realities, as the IRGC continues to target shipping and seize vessels, while both sides have faced significant attrition of their military capabilities.
Fox believes that neither Washington nor Tehran has the capacity to enter a full-scale, prolonged war, as on the one hand, weapons stockpiles are depleting, and on the other, Iran is grappling with severe domestic economic problems.
According to him, the only possible solution is a gradual diplomatic path that begins with de-escalation at sea and ultimately leads to a new nuclear agreement.
This same perspective was articulated by William Burns, former CIA director, in The New York Times. He criticized Washington's sole reliance on military power, stating that this approach has been counterproductive.
Burns believes the war has increased Iran's intransigence and turned the Strait of Hormuz into a strategic leverage tool in Tehran's hands.
He also says the war has indirectly benefited Russia through energy markets and China through strengthening its bargaining position with the United States. For this reason, Burns calls on Washington to return to a calibrated diplomacy that combines power and negotiation, rather than relying solely on direct military operations.
**************
End/ 345E
