Overview of the Rachman Review: "Iran war risks turning into a battle of endurance"
This episode of the Financial Times' Rachman Review (host Gideon Rachman) features Emil Hokayem of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It examines the US–Israel campaign against Iran that began with a strike on Tehran killing senior leadership, Iran’s widening retaliation across the Gulf, and why the conflict looks less like a decisive short war and more like a contest of endurance with major regional and geopolitical knock‑on effects.
Key takeaways
- The conflict is likely to be a short, intense phase (weeks) followed by a long, messy tail rather than a clear, quick victory.
- Military advantage currently lies with the US and Israel, but Iran’s political resilience and distributed command make collapse unlikely.
- The core metric is endurance: how many offensive projectiles Iran can launch vs how many interceptors the US/Israel/Gulf partners can sustain.
- Iran’s current effectiveness centers on drones (Shahid‑136‑style UAVs) and limited ballistic/cruise use; surviving attacks ≠ decisive battlefield success.
- Neither the US nor Israel appears prepared to manage a complex "day after" in Iran; regional instability, refugee flows, and unsecured weapons/nuclear material are major risks.
- Gulf states’ “safe haven” image has been damaged; they may permit greater US access and possibly participate politically or operationally, raising entanglement risks.
- European and UK involvement is constrained by the political and practical problem of being committed to a war whose endgame and stabilization requirements are undefined.
Background / what happened
- A US–Israel strike on Tehran eliminated much of Iran’s senior leadership.
- The US announced major combat operations in Iran; President Trump publicly endorsed regime change rhetoric.
- Iran retaliated beyond Israel: strikes against Israel, Saudi Arabia and Gulf states (including reports of an attack on the US consulate in Dubai), provoking embassy closures and calls for US citizens to leave the region.
- The conflict has reverberated through shipping, regional security, and global political alignments.
Main arguments from Emil Hokayem
- Short intense phase, long tail: Expect a few weeks of high-intensity strikes followed by lingering insecurity and unpredictable developments.
- Resilience vs capability: Iran’s ideology, command structure, and wartime experience give resilience, but arsenal depth (ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, interceptors) is limited.
- Battle of metrics: The war will be decided by attrition—munitions, production capacity, supply chains, and perceptions—rather than a single decisive battle.
- Political incoherence complicates outcomes: Broad, shifting US aims create ambiguities that make success/failure hard to measure and complicate planning for the aftermath.
- Day-after vacuum: The US and Israel lack appetite and plans to manage reconstruction/stability in Iran; external actors may try to exploit or contain factions, risking fragmentation and chaos.
- Regional actors will act in self‑interest: Gulf states may loosen limits on US use of bases or take limited operational roles, but they fear the day‑after burden.
Metrics and indicators to watch
- Tempo and nature of Iranian strikes: numbers, types (UAV vs ballistic vs cruise), and targeting patterns (military vs economic/civilian infrastructure).
- Interceptor and munitions stocks: depletion rates for US/Israel/Gulf interceptors and US resupply pace.
- US escalation choices: use of strategic bombers, expanded bases, and rules of engagement—whether Washington escalates to seek a decisive outcome.
- Proxy activation: whether Iran’s partners (Houthis, Hezbollah, others) become more actively engaged.
- Economic chokepoints and shipping disruptions: activity at Bab el‑Mandeb, Gulf shipping lanes, insurance costs, and oil markets.
- Political signals from Gulf states, Europe, and UK: base access, operational contributions, and diplomatic commitments.
Regional and geopolitical implications
- Gulf states: Confidence and the “safe, stable hub” brand are damaged; recovery is possible but will require heavy state spending and a shift from complacency to active risk management.
- Israel: Tactical gains and a perceived strategic win, but long‑term costs to regional standing and US domestic political support are possible.
- US global standing: Military demonstration of power may reassure some partners, but poor endgame planning and swings in US policy risk undermining long‑term credibility.
- Iran: Likely to shift into harassment and insurgent-style operations rather than conventional victory; risk of internal fragmentation, refugee flows, and unsecured strategic material.
- Wider actors (Russia/China): Unlikely to intervene militarily; geopolitical competition will be shaped more by perceptions of US conduct and competence than by clear alignments.
Likely scenarios
- Baseline: Several weeks of intense strikes → de-escalation into prolonged low‑level confrontation and harassment (Iran reduced but not eliminated).
- Escalation/slippery slope: Continued attacks on Gulf/merchant shipping provoke deeper international military engagement and higher entanglement costs.
- Fragmentation: Lack of a credible stabilization plan produces chaotic internal dynamics inside Iran (factions, refugee flows, unsecured weapons), with broad regional spillover.
Notable quotes (paraphrased)
- “This is a battle of endurance… How many projectiles can Iran still launch and how many interceptors can the US, Israel and their partners use to counter that?”
- “Surviving is not the same as winning on the battlefield.”
- “Neither the US nor Israel are interested in managing the day after.”
Implications for policymakers and businesses
- Policymakers: Prepare for protracted instability, prioritize contingency planning for refugee flows, nuclear/material security, and long-term regional stabilization rather than short-term military victory narratives.
- Gulf governments: Reassess risk communication with residents and expats; plan infrastructure spending and insurance/resilience measures.
- Businesses/expats: Reevaluate investment, personnel, and relocation decisions in the Gulf region; expect elevated insurance and operational costs.
- Global markets: Energy and maritime insurance markets should monitor chokepoints and send early price signals if disruptions accelerate.
Bottom line
The US–Israel strike on Iran has opened a conflict that looks likely to be intense but indecisive: a short, violent phase followed by a prolonged period of insecurity and regional disruption. Success will be judged less by battlefield outcomes than by who can sustain munitions, diplomatic support, and the political will to manage the aftermath—resources that neither the US nor Israel appear ready to commit in the way required to secure a stable post‑conflict Iran.