- March 4, 2026
- 3:13 pm
- Brief news
A military strike on Iran by the US and Israel at first glance looks like a conflict with a predictable outcome. Both countries possess powerful air forces, advanced intelligence systems, and modern precision strike capabilities. However, behind this advantage lies a strategic problem: even the most technologically advanced army can face a shortage of key munitions faster than the war itself concludes.
Analysts warn that a protracted conflict could turn the West’s advantage into a vulnerability. Especially if the war enters a phase of attrition—a scenario already observed in other modern conflicts.
Why air superiority does not guarantee a quick victory
At the operational level, the US and Israel’s strategy revolves around the rapid suppression of Iranian infrastructure: air defense systems, command posts, and missile launchers. The concept involves a series of pinpoint strikes intended to paralyze the enemy’s military system in the early days of the conflict.
But even a successful air campaign does not solve the main problem of modern warfare—the limitation of resources.
Precision missiles and interceptors cost millions of dollars and are produced in limited batches. Their consumption is measured in days, while replenishing stocks takes months or even years.
The US and Israel seek to avoid a scenario where the war drags on and turns into a costly war of attrition. However, this logic often begins to operate after the first weeks of hostilities.
Interceptor shortage: a real threat in modern warfare
The experience of recent conflicts shows that even high-tech missile defense systems can quickly deplete their resources.
During a previous exchange of strikes, Israel faced a critical reduction in stocks of Arrow-3 interceptors—a system designed to destroy ballistic missiles outside the atmosphere.
To stabilize the situation, the US was forced to urgently strengthen regional missile defense forces. Destroyers with SM-2, SM-3, and SM-6 missiles, as well as THAAD complexes, were sent to the Persian Gulf.
During one phase of the conflict, Iran launched hundreds of missiles. Although a significant portion was intercepted, each successful defense required the launch of expensive interceptor missiles.
As a result, even successful defense turned into a huge burden on arsenals and budgets.
The military campaign cost Israel hundreds of millions of dollars daily. For a country with limited territory and dense infrastructure, such a burden quickly becomes a strategic factor.
That is why the issue of weapon stocks becomes a key element of any modern war.
Lessons from Ukraine and the Middle East
Modern conflicts show the same pattern: technological superiority does not negate wars of attrition.
The Russian-Ukrainian war has become the most vivid example. Both sides actively use drones, precision missiles, and modern fire control systems. Nevertheless, the conflict has turned into a protracted confrontation where the key role is played not by technology, but by the ability to maintain sustainable supply.
A similar dynamic can be observed in the Middle East.
Israel’s military operations in Gaza were accompanied by a powerful intelligence and technological advantage. However, even in these conditions, the war required prolonged ground operations and significant resources.
Such examples show that remote warfare rarely leads to quick political results.
It is against this backdrop that the editorial team of NAnews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency draws attention to the key conclusion of analysts: modern wars are increasingly turning into a marathon of resources, where the winner is not the one who strikes first, but the one who can sustain the pace of combat operations longer.
Why remote wars drag on
Strategies based solely on aviation and missile strikes have serious limitations.
They allow for reducing losses of one’s own troops but rarely force the enemy to capitulate quickly.
History shows that even large-scale air campaigns—from World War II to modern US operations—rarely lead to immediate political results. After the first weeks of intensive strikes, the list of key targets shrinks, and the war enters a more complex phase.
At this point, the need arises for ground operations, political pressure, and economic exhaustion of the enemy.
Thus, technological superiority can accelerate the start of a war but does not guarantee its quick end.
How the war with Iran could affect Ukraine and global security
One of the key strategic consequences of the conflict could be the redistribution of US military resources.
If the campaign against Iran drags on, Washington will be forced to use reserves of precision weapons intended for other potential conflicts. Primarily, this concerns deterring Russia in Europe and China in East Asia.
Military simulations conducted in the US and NATO countries already show a worrying trend.
In scenarios of a major conflict, stocks of precision missiles and interceptors run out significantly faster than political plans assume. Sometimes it is a matter of days or weeks of active combat.
This means that any new major conflict automatically affects the global balance of power.
Iran’s strategy: playing for time
Iran’s military strategy is built around one key principle—to prolong the conflict.
Tehran aims to overload the enemy’s missile defense systems with massive launches of missiles and drones. The goal of such tactics is to deplete the interceptor stocks of the US, Israel, and their allies.
In the early days of the conflict, Iran has already launched hundreds of missiles and drones. Simultaneously, Israeli and American forces are actively destroying launchers and infrastructure.
Both sides are engaged in a kind of resource race.
It remains unknown which strategy will prove more effective.
But the main factor of this war is already clear: time becomes the key weapon.
If the US and Israel strive for a quick victory, then for Iran, the main task is to prolong the conflict.
That is why, in the strategic dimension, the clock is indeed ticking.