The Iran-US-Israel Conflict: War Dynamics and Consequences for Armenia
09.03.2026
The military actions that began on the morning of February 28, 2026, have become the most large-scale direct confrontation between Iran and its adversaries—the United States and Israel. Initial US/Israeli air and missile strikes against targets inside Iran triggered a retaliatory response from Tehran.
Despite the significant scale of the strikes, the conflict currently remains predominantly standoff-based, without a transition to ground operations. Nevertheless, the intensity of the strikes points to the gradual formation of a protracted conflict with dangerous consequences for the region.
Military Strategy of the US-Israel Coalition
The US-Israel coalition is employing strategic and tactical aviation, sea- and air-launched cruise missiles, high-precision aerial munitions, strike UAVs, and even long-range MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket Systems).
The primary targets are Iran’s military infrastructure: air defense systems, missile bases, military industrial facilities, ammunition depots, and strategic life-support facilities. Additionally, the coalition aims to eliminate Iran’s leadership and high command.
Beyond direct strikes, cooperation with armed groups on Iran's periphery is intensifying. This involves certain Kurdish formations in the northwest and Baluchi groups in the east. These forces may be utilized for sabotage operations, reconnaissance, and exerting pressure on Iranian security structures.
Iran’s Retaliatory Strategy
Iran’s strategy is based on combined retaliatory strikes using ballistic and cruise missiles of various ranges and strike drones. Attacks are being launched against Israel, US military facilities, and infrastructure related to the regional energy sector.
A critical element of the retaliatory strategy has been strikes against facilities associated with the US military presence in the Persian Gulf. US military infrastructure is distributed across several Gulf states—including airbases, logistics centers, and missile defense systems—making them potential targets. Isolated reports indicate the destruction of expensive early-warning radar installations linked to the US missile defense system, which are used to detect ballistic missiles and are part of the NATO BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) architecture.
Simultaneously, oil industry facilities—terminals, refining capacities, and transport infrastructure—are becoming primary targets for Iran. Disruptions to energy infrastructure could impact global oil markets and increase economic risks for regional countries. Such actions significantly raise the risk of direct involvement by Arab Gulf states in the conflict on the side of the US/Israel.
Missile Systems vs. Missile Defense
A key feature of the current conflict is the confrontation between offensive missile systems and multi-layered missile defense (PRO) systems.
Iran possessed a multi-level air defense system; however, the intensity and technological level of US and Israeli strikes have rendered it unable to prevent targets from being hit. Most airstrikes are reaching their objectives within the country.
At the same time, Israel’s missile defense system is considered among the most complex and echeloned in the world. It includes multiple layers of interception, supplemented by elements of the American THAAD system deployed at regional bases. Nevertheless, video footage and reports from various sources show that Iranian missiles periodically penetrate the defense system and reach their targets.
The Importance of Air Superiority
The experience of modern warfare shows that the ability to secure an advantage in the air significantly influences the overall balance of power. Control over airspace allows for systematic strikes and limits the enemy army's freedom of maneuver. This involves not only combat aviation but also the effective use of satellite reconnaissance, unmanned systems, electronic warfare, and precision weaponry.
Air superiority allows a party to impose its own initiative. Conversely, the key task becomes not so much achieving total air dominance as preventing the opponent from establishing it. While the US-Israel coalition possesses a total advantage in aviation and reconnaissance, Iranian missile forces remain a serious deterrent factor, even amid the methodical destruction of their offensive and defensive systems.
The Economic Asymmetry of War
Intercepting missiles and drones requires high-tech interceptor missiles. Meanwhile, the attacking assets are significantly cheaper. Under conditions of regular mass attacks, this creates a heavy burden on defense systems. Repelling each volley requires a high expenditure of expensive interceptors, which over time could lead to depleted stockpiles and increased financial costs of waging war. Thus, the conflict is gradually taking on the characteristics of a war of attrition.
The Maritime Dimension
Following US/Israeli strikes on Iran’s naval infrastructure, the destruction of several Iranian ships and naval facilities in coastal areas has been reported. However, part of the Iranian fleet remains operational, including missile boats, unmanned maritime platforms, and small-displacement submarines. These forces are designed for combat in the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf. While vulnerable in the open sea, they maintain survivability and pose a threat within restricted maritime geography.
The maritime component is vital for global energy, as a portion of global oil and LNG (liquefied natural gas) supplies passes through the region. Iran has restricted navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and struck several oil tankers in the Gulf, actions that have already caused a spike in global oil prices.
Humanitarian Consequences
The hostilities are accompanied by significant humanitarian losses. Reports indicate that a substantial portion of those killed in Iran are civilians. There are children among the victims; some estimates place the number of deceased children at over two hundred.
Reasons for these losses include population density in strike zones, the proximity of military facilities to urban infrastructure, coordinate errors, missile deviations, or "area strikes" where civilian casualties are categorized by the attacking side as "collateral damage." Simultaneously, missile attacks on Israel have also resulted in destruction and civilian casualties.
Information and Cyber Warfare
The information space is rapidly filling with contradictory reports and visual materials of uncertain origin, making verification difficult even for specialized analytical structures.
Massive cyberattacks on Iranian infrastructure have been reported. Against this backdrop, Iranian authorities have restricted domestic internet access to counter cyber and information operations. There is a high level of control over information flow; Iranian, American, and Israeli sources all show signs of censorship regarding the exact scale of losses and damage to critical facilities.
Additionally, episodes of hitting "decoy targets" have been recorded. Published footage suggests that a portion of coalition strikes were directed at Iranian mock-ups of launchers or false objects—a traditional military deception tactic used to waste high-precision weapons.
Regional Consequences: The South Caucasus
A specific incident that gained regional resonance involved drones moving toward Nakhichevan. Reportedly, two or three units fell near the international airport and a local settlement.
Azerbaijani authorities issued sharp statements against Iran. The President of Azerbaijan used highly insulting language toward the Iranian leadership. Simultaneously, a state of high alert was declared, and diplomatic personnel were evacuated from Iran. The following day, Azerbaijani security services claimed to have uncovered a network in Baku linked to the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) allegedly planning terrorist acts.
This practice of "tit-for-tat" arrests and accusations has been a characteristic element of recent Azerbaijani foreign policy. A further factor of tension is Iran's warning to Azerbaijan: Tehran stated that Baku must expel Israeli military specialists, or those facilities could become potential targets for Iranian strikes.
Because Azerbaijan has close allied relations with Turkey and a mutual defense agreement, this could potentially draw Turkey into the war on the side of the US/Israel.
Impact on Armenia
While the South Caucasus is not a direct theater of war, the conflict significantly influences regional geopolitics. Iran plays a vital role in the regional balance of power, and any weakening of its military-political potential could alter the strategic configuration of the South Caucasus.
For Armenia, the consequences are complex and contradictory. Iran is an essential economic partner, a transit route, and a factor in regional geopolitical balance. Prolonged instability in Iran could lead to reduced trade flows, decreased efficiency of transport routes, and increased economic and logistical risks. At the same time, a weakened Iran could completely shift the balance of power in the South Caucasus, creating additional security challenges for Armenia.
Conclusion
Collectively, these factors indicate that the conflict is already transcending the boundaries of a local confrontation. The parties show no readiness for de-escalation. On the contrary, the involvement of new instruments of pressure points toward a likely continuation of the war.
The situation is complicated by the risk of other states being drawn into the confrontation. Iranian strikes on US infrastructure in Arab Gulf states and the rising tension between Iran and Azerbaijan create additional risks. Given the potential involvement of NATO actors already providing support to the US and Israel, the Middle East and adjacent regions, including the South Caucasus, face a risk of prolonged instability.
Eduard Arakelyan
RCDS