On paper, Iran is nowhere near the United States when it comes to military muscle. The US accounts for roughly 37 percent of global military spending, while Iran is under 1 percent. That gap matters. Still, military power on paper is not the whole story.

Why numbers do not tell the whole story

The US has struggled before against opponents who use insurgent tactics. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are recent examples where the US did not achieve a clear, decisive victory. In each case the stronger military did not lose outright but eventually pulled back, allowing its opponents to claim success.

Iran understands that reality. It cannot outgun the United States, but it can try to outlast American political will. To do that, Tehran is relying on four main tactics.

1. Provocation

Iran has struck military bases and critical infrastructure around the Persian Gulf to try to draw the US into heavier and more visible military responses. That is the point. Escalation serves several goals for Tehran:

  • Domestic pressure. As US and allied strikes mount, civilian casualties rise and public anger inside Iran grows. According to Iran’s health ministry, more than 1,400 Iranians have been killed and over 18,000 wounded in the fighting so far. That makes long-term popular support for an escalated war harder to maintain.
  • Political pressure in the US. The higher the human and financial cost of a campaign, the harder it becomes for American leaders to sustain it. One recent Reuters and Ipsos poll found just 27 percent of Americans supported the war. That kind of public fatigue can drive calls for withdrawal.

If provocation works the other way and the US sends large ground forces, Iran would be positioned to shift into a full insurgency, which historically increases casualties and political damage for the intervening power.

2. Spoiling regional relationships

Tehran has also struck targets in Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. That looks risky because these are neighbors Iran will have to live with after hostilities end. But there is a clear purpose.

For decades the Gulf states have leaned on the US as their security guarantor. By attacking Gulf targets now, Iran aims to make those states question how useful or safe that partnership is. The strategy tries to create distrust between Gulf capitals and Washington, weaken regional alignment with the US and, if successful, change the Middle East security balance in Iran’s favor.

3. Light weapons and nimble naval tactics

After losing much of its conventional naval capability early in the conflict, Iran turned to asymmetric tools. It is using drones, fast attack boats, naval mines and small submarines built for shallow Gulf waters. These systems are cheap, hard to defend against, and well suited to disrupting maritime traffic.

Controlling or threatening the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf shipping affects the global flow of oil, liquefied natural gas and other key commodities. That gives Iran leverage far beyond its military size because economic disruption raises global pressure on the US to de-escalate.

4. Targeting civilian infrastructure

Iran has threatened and attacked civilian infrastructure such as airports, desalination plants and energy facilities. These strikes increase the humanitarian and economic stakes for neighboring states and for global markets. They also spread fear among civilian populations since no one can be sure what will be hit next.

Attacks on non-military targets amplify pressure on Gulf governments and international actors to seek an end to the fighting. They also create broader political momentum for a US withdrawal.

What Tehran is trying to achieve

The strategic logic is straightforward. Iran does not need to win a conventional military victory. It needs to avoid collapse long enough for political, economic and popular pressure to build in the US and among its allies. If Tehran survives while US domestic support erodes, it can claim a form of victory by default.

The regime is weakened and vulnerable in the medium term, but its short-term aim is survival and buying time. These insurgent tactics are aimed at exactly that outcome.

How the United States could respond differently

If Washington wants more than temporary battlefield effects, it must change approach. Central to a counterinsurgency mindset is this dual idea: inflict damage on the enemy while protecting civilian lives and infrastructure to win broader political support.

Past US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan show both failures and lessons. So far in this conflict protecting civilians has not been a clear priority. Civilian casualties and damage to cultural and social infrastructure undermine any claim to moral or political legitimacy. Reported strikes that destroyed a girls school and killed many children are a stark example of the risks.

To alter the course of this war, US policy would need to emphasize civilian protection, avoid actions that deepen popular resentment, and support realistic political pathways for the country after this regime. That is not easy, and it is not quick. But if the goal is to prevent Iran from simply outwaiting American resolve, changing strategy matters.

Bottom line

Iran is smaller and militarily weaker than the US, but it is employing classic insurgent tactics designed to make the political and economic cost of fighting unsustainable for Washington and its partners. The outcome may depend less on battlefield victories and more on which side can keep public and political support intact. Right now Tehran is betting it can last longer than American will to fight.