Time is being used as a weapon
getty
As the United States settles into a recurring cycle of Iranian attacks followed by American airstrikes followed by short-lived peace talks, the burning question on everyone’s minds is how to bring the conflict to an end.
Some analysts see the central challenge as technological and economic: Iran’s drones and inexpensive cruise missiles often cost far less than the high-end interceptors the United States and its allies use to defeat them. They therefore advocate larger inventories of low-cost interceptors, autonomous defensive systems, electronic warfare capabilities, and directed-energy weapons to reverse that unfavorable cost exchange. The immediate question, however, is not whether these technologies are needed, but whether the United States can field them in sufficient numbers—and integrate them operationally—within the coming months to alter the current conflict’s trajectory.
The more significant question, however, is how to defeat the most important weapon in Iran’s arsenal: time. Iran’s leaders know they cannot defeat the United States in a conventional military contest. But they are betting they don’t need to. Instead, their objective is to simply endure.
Betting that denying President Trump an agreement before the November 2026 midterm elections would constitute a strategic victory, the regime’s immediate objective is to survive the next several months, while imposing costs and frustrating American diplomacy in order to prevent the administration from claiming credit for resolving the conflict conclusively.
In that context, U.S. military action destroying another facility or issuing a new round of sanctions may impose cumulative consequences on Iran, but it will not convince the regime to alter its course.
This is the problem: The United States is measuring progress in targets destroyed, weapons expended, and economic damage imposed. Iran is measuring progress in days survived.
Iran’s Strategy
Tehran and its proxies employ relatively inexpensive missiles, attack drones, mines, small boats, and other weapons to threaten American forces, regional partners, and commercial shipping. Many of these weapons are individually unsophisticated, and the majority fail or are intercepted.
Yet they do achieve strategic effects. Bombarding the U.S. and allies with comparatively inexpensive weapons compels the America and its allies employ interceptors at many times their cost. It also disrupts maritime traffic, pressures energy markets, strains regional air defenses, and creates continuing demands for U.S. military action. Iranian-supported attacks are increasing the cost and transit times associated with commercial shipping. Only a small percentage of attacks need be successful to create economic anxiety and political pressure disproportionate to the weapons employed.
Iran is betting that the America will give up before the Iranian regime becomes desperate, and that public concern over declining interceptor inventories, growing economic costs, and conflict fatigue will, with the approach of the midterm elections, create greater urgency in Washington than in Tehran.
Repeated pauses, renewed attacks, and stalled negotiations reinforce the perception that each side is testing the other’s staying power. Meanwhile, U.S. forces have continued striking Iranian missile, drone, surveillance, and maritime targets while constraining the regime’s freedom of action.
The Trump administration deserves credit for recognizing that the Iranian challenge extends well beyond the nuclear file. Its policy of maximum pressure calls for sustained sanctions enforcement, the disruption of IRGC resources, and the neutralization of Iran’s regional aggression. The strategic requirement now is to ensure that these instruments are applied over a time horizon long enough to alter Tehran’s calculations.
Iran’s apparent willingness to absorb extraordinary punishment is consistent with the character of its political system. Its leadership has repeatedly demonstrated that it is prepared to impose severe hardship on the Iranian population to preserve the regime. Even damage that weakens for years may still be tolerable to Tehran as long as its leaders believe enduring it will deny the United States a short-term political success.
There Is No Technological Silver Bullet
The United States is right to accelerate development and deployment of lower-cost counter-drone systems, autonomous interceptors, high-powered microwave weapons, electronic warfare capabilities, and directed-energy systems to counter cheap drone and cruise missiles. Doing so can recalibrate the cost-exchange ratio with these weapons. And there is encouraging progress. The Army has rapidly deployed thousands of Merops counter-drone interceptors, and the U.S. military services continue developing and fielding lasers, high-powered microwave systems, and other defensive capabilities. These directed-energy weapons offer potentially significant advantages, including lower per-use costs and the ability to defeat drones and missiles.
Directed-energy weapons can increase defensive capacity and preserve high-end interceptors for ballistic and cruise missile threats. Artificial intelligence can accelerate detection and engagement decisions. Uninhabited surface, subsurface, and airborne systems can extend surveillance, protect maritime routes, and complicate Iranian operations.
But none of these technologies is a strategic solution by itself.
A promising system must still be produced in sufficient quantities, integrated with sensors and command networks, deployed throughout a vast theater, maintained under operational conditions, and proven against an adaptive enemy. Even successful technologies will not eliminate every missile or drone, protect every installation, or compel Tehran to negotiate.
Technology can improve the terms of the contest. It cannot determine the political objective or supply the patience required to achieve it.
The United States should also avoid treating Iranian asymmetric warfare as mysterious or revolutionary. Iran’s approach works not because its weapons are innovative , but because they are employed as part of a coherent strategy designed to exploit American political impatience, defensive costs, and concerns about escalation.
The appropriate response is therefore not simply a better interceptor, but rather a strategy that makes time work against Tehran.
Destruction Is Not the Same as Leverage
American airpower can inflict devastating damage on Iran’s military establishment, but that does not constitute a strategy. To be productive, military effects must be connected to a defined political purpose.
If Iran believes it only needs to survive until the American political environment changes, then retaliatory strikes alone can be waited out. To be effective, the U.S. must convince Tehran that waiting will make its position progressively worse—not better.
This requires persistent military pressure against the regime’s ability to attack and regenerate. The United States should continue attacking the production, storage, command-and-control, and launch architecture supporting Iran’s missile, drone, and maritime operations. Electrical-power infrastructure that directly and effectively supports those military capabilities constitute a lawful military objective when targeted in accordance with the principles of distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions, and provide a highly leveraged means of neutralizing them consistent with the law of armed conflict. Maritime restrictions should be sustained and enforced consistently, with clearly defined humanitarian provisions and consequences for violations.
Most importantly, military pressure must be integrated with a sustained economic campaign directed at the revenue streams that finance the regime and its military reconstruction.
Iran’s petroleum trade remains its central economic lifeline. Tehran depends on front companies, financial intermediaries, foreign refineries, ship-to-ship transfers, and a shadow fleet to disguise the origin and destination of its exports.
The Treasury and State Departments have already taken significant action against these networks. Recent Treasury measures target vessels, companies, financial intermediaries, and procurement networks supporting Iranian petroleum sales, missile production, and unmanned aircraft programs. Those actions provide a strong foundation for a campaign that connects economic pressure directly to military and diplomatic objectives.
Washington should continue systematically inhibiting the banks, insurers, port operators, brokers, refiners, and shipping networks that enable Iranian revenue. This forces foreign companies and governments to choose: access to the American financial system or assist in Iran’s sanctions-evasion economy. It must be clear you cannot do both.
Enforcement matters more than announcements. A sanctioned tanker that continues delivering oil represents unrealized leverage. Closing the gap between designation and enforcement is essential to maximizing pressure and strategic effect.
The Long Game Is the Path to a Durable Win
President Trump has long emphasized speed, deadlines, and measurable results. That approach can create valuable urgency and prevent bureaucratic drift. Iran, however, is attempting to turn that preference for rapid results to its advantage by arguing an agreement must be reached within a narrow political window.
The administration should resist and decouple the midterm election calendar from Iranian negotiations.
A 100-day benchmark can be a useful management and communications milestone, but it is insufficient for compelling a revolutionary regime to turn its back on decades spent absorbing sanctions, suppressing domestic opposition, and waging war through proxies and asymmetric means.
For President Trump to secure a durable victory, the United States must be prepared to play the long game. This does not mean accepting an endless war. It means establishing conditions under which Iran’s choices are steadily reduced while America’s are preserved.
The administration can reinforce its position by making clear that economic and military pressure will continue beyond the midterm elections. It should expand interceptor and counter-drone production on an emergency basis, build regional stockpiles, strengthen partner defenses, and shift the cost-exchange ratio in America’s favor. It should continue degrading Iran’s capacity to manufacture and employ offensive weapons while tightening enforcement against the regime’s oil, shipping, and financial networks.
The objective should not be destruction for its own sake or an agreement that trades substantial economic relief for temporary or unverifiable promises.
The objective should be to change Iran’s strategic calculation.
Iran must come to believe that each additional month of resistance will carry increasing cost, resulting in less revenue, fewer military options, greater isolation, diminished military capability, and a weaker negotiating position. At the same time, the United States should make clear that a verifiable agreement remains available if Iran abandons the behavior that created the crisis.
This combination—relentless pressure and a credible diplomatic solution—offers the best prospect for achieving the administration’s objectives.
The decisive question is not whether the Pentagon has a secret technological breakthrough waiting in the wings. It is whether the United States has the strategic patience, economic discipline, and political determination to ensure that Iran cannot simply outlast it.
If Washington demonstrates that determination, time will cease to be Iran’s most powerful weapon and become America’s.