The aftermath of the so-called “12-day war” between Iran, Israel, and the United States—if examined through a strategic lens—reveals an important shift in how modern conflict is being understood, executed, and potentially redefined.

While it may be premature to say Iran has become more “powerful” in the traditional sense, what’s evident is that Iran has managed to reassert itself as a capable asymmetric actor. Its use of multi-domain tactics—particularly drone swarms, precision-guided munitions, and saturation missile strikes—highlighted how a state with limited conventional superiority can still project strategic deterrence. If anything, Iran demonstrated that resilience, adaptability, and hybrid tactics can offset technological gaps.

That said, the costs of such confrontation matter, and whether Iran’s internal political and economic structures can absorb those costs will ultimately shape whether this war enhances or erodes its long-term power.

As for traditional airpower—manned fighter jets and bombers—they haven’t become obsolete, but their dominance has been diluted. The increasing accuracy, autonomy, and affordability of unmanned systems and high-velocity missiles mean that air superiority is no longer guaranteed by having the most advanced aircraft. We’re moving into a battlefield where speed, stealth, and swarm logic are becoming more decisive than brute force.

Moreover, drones, hypersonics, and radar-evading cruise missiles—especially those with vertical-launch or loitering capabilities—are not just tactical tools. They’re shaping the strategic imagination of war itself. States now have access to systems that challenge the traditional monopoly of power projection once held by NATO or U.S. carrier groups.

Did Iran offer a model for future conflict? In some ways, yes. Not necessarily as a blueprint, but as a warning and a case study. For global powers, the war may underline the urgency of rethinking static defense systems. For smaller or sanctioned states, it may reinforce the idea that technological innovation and layered deterrence can carve out strategic space, even in an unequal fight.

In short, the war doesn’t signal Iran’s rise as a global power, but it certainly signals the rise of new forms of power—and those watching closely are already taking notes.

In 2023, Chinese public opinion had high expectations for Iran's pressure to confront Israel, but by 2025, there has clearly been a significant change in Chinese public opinion If readers are interested in reading Chinese comments on Zhihu and Station B, they will only see China's disappointment and mockery of Iran. You may also find that the most popular topic is to analyze why Iran is so weak, rather than think Iran is so strong.

The twelve-day conflict reinforced Iran’s deterrent posture through its ability to sustain missile and drone capabilities under sustained strikes, though significant damage to its infrastructure revealed limitations to its strategic depth. Meanwhile, U.S. and Israeli precision targeting demonstrated the enduring supremacy of advanced C4ISR systems, curbing Iran’s military escalation potential.

The conflict also highlighted a shift in airpower dynamics: drones and hypersonic missiles challenged the operational space of manned aircraft but did not render them obsolete. Instead, traditional warplanes adapted to operate from standoff ranges, coordinating with unmanned systems.

Modern fighter jets—such as the F‑35, F‑15EX, and Su‑57—remain vital to missions like air superiority and SEAD, provided they are integrated within multi-domain warfare networks. Thus, the war underscored not the obsolescence of airpower, but its transformation into a more networked, synergistic force component.

Pierre Razoux in 2015 published a book on the Iran Iraq war of the 1980s. Kindly see link: https://academic.oup.com/ia/article-abstract/92/3/746/2327106

What emerges from this book quite clearly is the Iranian stamina and character, that, i think few have fully realized in these current times.

Iran, recently, and yet again, faced a full scale aggression by two countries, based on some very scant and farcical evidence on supposed WMD development. This has created, on the political level, a good reason, to effectively take all measures by Iran for the right of self defence. This has seemingly made Iran far more prominent, and understandably, more prone to self defence, via all means. Iran is now in a position, seemingly, to alter its collaboration with the IAEA of the UN and the negotiations that were underway with the USA, for example.

It is amazing how few in decision making positions have really understood what they are up against in terms of Iran. It is the same mentality which brought the USA and its allies a humiliating defeat in Afghanistan after a 20 year war, which was lost on all levels: political, military, economic, social and culturally. Basically this humiliation, seems to be one of the driving forces behind the attacks on Iran. Further, the USA also was humiliated in Iraq politically, but not so much militarily, but still faced a terrible time for well over 10 years. yet, again, they will get much the same with Iran. Interestingly, making pre-emptive strikes to make a country safer, actually makes it more vulnerable. Israel has been fighting in Palestine for nearly two years now, in Lebanon, Yemen and Syria and now Iran, but the country is actually more vulnerable now, then before. This vulnerability is not only on the military front, but on the economic, political, social and cultural fronts. For example, see the ongoing genocide of Palestinians ...see the information on the economy ...see how Israel is still more vulnerable than before to being bombed ......................

This says it all

Both Iran and Israel have demonstrated a good degree of high-tech weapon mastery. However, the weak points of both were also obvious compare to the western states capacity to attack and defend, the future lies in their capability enhancement, but to have a lasting peace in the region, accommodating each others differences with opting for diplomacy to resolve conflicting interest is the best alternative.

Iran's strategic position has improved as it has shown that it is a regime able to withstand join Israeli and US military pressure, but it's still far from what was before 2024, as it cannot currently count on the satellite actors in Gaza (Hamas), Lenanon (Hezbollah) and Syria. However, what has significantly increased is Iran's need to acquire nuclear weapons, as it clearly shows that they are the only "golden warranty" against regime chance attempts, so we can expect even more activity towards this goad in the forhcoming years.

Dear Doctor

Definitely yes.

Iran showed a great power in its conflict with its enemy Zionism.

Iran possesses humanity principles and has the right to keep its nation free and to boost the rights of Palestinians, as a global issue.

So, Iran emerged as a glittering star in the sky and let Zionism be scary and afraid and filled with shame.

Zionism defeated in this war and the victory was to Iran.

God bless and help who defend and fight under true principles and ethics.

An interesting short news cast from Al Jazeera that provides that the IAEA personnel in Iran has left

Kindly see link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA12x_JPohc

An interesting documentary on who will now monitor Iran’s nuclear facilities

Kindy see link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFHLz96ntxE

An interesting short BBC documentary on the countries in the world that have nuclear weapons and how they got them

Kindly see link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4XYMoSGsBM

Kindly note Iran signed the NPT treaty, adhered to all its clauses including regular IAEA inspections and signed the JCPOA (in which ONLY the USA pulled out …………………..)

Note Isreal never signed the NPT, has never had IAEA inspectors in country and it is presumed Israel has a nuclear weapons capability. Hence, under such circumstances, would pre-emptive strikes on Isreal be warranted?

An interesting short documentary from Al Jazeera which considers the so called ’12 day’ war from an Iranian civilian perspective

Kindly see Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBryZ-4pY58

The ISIS did not emerge stronger from the war against Israel and the USA because it showed that it had no air defenses and lost its branches to Hizbullah and Hamas. From this point of view, it is rather weak. On the other hand, it showed that with its missiles, it could reach Israel and pose a potential danger whose extent no one really measures. But, the USA showed that they could strike it whenever and wherever they wanted without it having the capacity to respond since the attack on the American base in Qatar was only a last stand, as the French say.

Abbas Kashani I wouldn’t use the word “powerful” to describe a country actively engaged in war—conflict often reflects instability, not strength. That said, I’ll stand by this: Iran, without question, carries the legacy of the ancient Persian empires that once ruled vast parts of the Middle East. The resilience of the Iranian people, and the state’s ability to respond strategically under pressure, has undeniably captured global attention.

The Trump administration’s failure to achieve its objectives in Iran represents more than a diplomatic misstep—it’s an embarrassment. The national security and foreign policy advisors responsible for that strategy should be held accountable for pushing reckless, shortsighted plans that underestimated Iran’s endurance and overestimated U.S. leverage. This isn’t leadership—it’s reactive, impulsive, and devoid of the patience and strategic foresight that military decision-making demands.

In many ways, this reminds me of the shock felt around the world after Japan defeated Russia in 1905—a moment that shattered colonial assumptions and reshaped how nations, especially in Asia, viewed European power. Similarly, this botched U.S. approach may spark a broader regional reassessment: countries may begin placing more trust in their own capabilities and less in American guarantees.

What’s most astonishing is the hypocrisy. Republicans were quick to criticize President Biden over the withdrawal from Afghanistan, yet their own handling of Iran was arguably far worse. Frankly, I don’t recognize this version of the Republican Party. Its behavior today betrays the principles that traditional conservatives once upheld. If President Reagan were watching, I imagine he’d look on with disbelief at what his party has become.

Now, back to your questions:

Has Iran become more powerful after the 12-day war with Israel and the United States? Short Answer: Not militarily more powerful—but politically and psychologically more assertive.

Iran did not “win” in a traditional military sense, but its ability to launch, survive, and influence a limited conflict with regional and global powers without collapsing has shifted global perceptions. Its use of asymmetric warfare, regional proxies, and missile technology demonstrated that it can impose costs and resist direct pressure. That isn’t power in the conventional sense, but it is strategic resilience—and that matters in today's world.

Have traditional warplanes lost their effectiveness in today's wars? Short Answer: Not entirely, but their dominance is declining.

Traditional warplanes are still vital for air superiority, intelligence, and targeted strikes—but they now face increasing threats from cheap drones, integrated air defense systems, and hypersonic weapons. The cost-to-impact ratio of traditional jets is becoming harder to justify when $10,000 drones can cripple billion-dollar assets. Air power remains important, but it’s no longer uncontested.

Will the role of drones, hypersonic missiles, radar-evading and vertical-launch weapons become more prominent? Short Answer: Absolutely—this is already happening.

Drones, loitering munitions (like “kamikaze drones”), hypersonic and supersonic missiles, and vertical-launch, radar-evading weapons are rapidly redefining modern warfare. These technologies are faster, harder to intercept, and significantly more cost-effective. They also enable weaker states and non-state actors to conduct precision strikes. Every major military—U.S., China, Russia, Iran, Israel—is investing heavily in these capabilities for good reason.

Did Iran set a model for future wars in this war to the world and Western countries? Short Answer: It offered a warning, not a full model.

Iran didn’t invent a new military doctrine, but it demonstrated how a medium-sized regional power can hold its own using hybrid warfare: drones, missiles, cyberattacks, and regional alliances (like Hezbollah and militia networks). Western observers are paying attention not because Iran “won,” but because it executed a multi-layered strategy against a superior force and endured. That sends a message—to the Global South, to U.S. adversaries, and to military planners: brute force is no longer enough.

It cannot be arguably correct to say that Iran has become powerful. But, it shows that Iran of today is not the Iran of yesterday. However, the present experience of the Israel is a testament for the country to ponder on its actions on the Palestinian and the people in Gaza, for Israel to have tasted the bitterness of end result of war. It is high time for Israel, especially the US to redefine their nuclear policies against Iran and other developing countries of the world to have a secured and peaceful global existence. Because, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

After the 12-day war, Iran did not significantly enhance its conventional military power, but it reinforced its position as an asymmetric deterrent force through its use of drones and precision missiles. The conflict revealed the limited effectiveness of traditional fighter jets in complex environments, in contrast to the rising prominence of drones, hypersonic missiles, and radar-evading technologies. This war signals a strategic shift in the nature of modern conflicts, where smart technologies and low-cost tools have become increasingly influential. Iran has thus introduced a new model of future warfare that blends advanced technological capabilities with irregular tactics, posing a challenge to traditional Western military doctrines.

A short news brief from Al Jazeera on how Israel attempted to kill Iran’s president

Kindly see link: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/CaagKulS_X8

An interesting BBC short documentary on why the Iranian economy is currently struggling

Kindly see link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYPWME4l1Ic

A very sad matter. I was reading through a discussion forum on RG and there were people posting celebrational content on the bombing of Iran! It is most disturbing and totally unacceptable that RG allows such people to make such comments. All very very very sad. How can people celebrate the loss of lives as a result of bombings. Tragically, this is nothing new, and grows out of a long period of seeding such discourses in media. One among the many examples is this: see this link on the 'worth' of Iraqi children

Kindly see link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

Further and more recently see this hatred speech on human animals

Kindly see link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlgHztaeoO4

See also this week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr24GcCDgyM

A news short from Al Jazeera on how sanctions impact medicine availability in Iran

Kindly see link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlbF82uaHjY

An interesting article from the Institute for the study of war (ISW) from 1st August 2025 that considers Iran’s future plans for peaceful nuclear energy development

Kindly see link: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-august-1-2025