War Resilience, Qods Day Mobilization, and Strategic Vulnerabilities in the Iran–U.S. Conflict
As the war between Iran, the United States, and Israel enters its fourteenth day, each party is clashing militarily and projecting competing narratives about endurance and collapse. Recent developments - including the Qods Day rallies in Iran today, the crash of a U.S. aerial refueling tanker in Iraq, continued missile exchanges, and rising regional anxiety in Gulf Cooperation Council countries - illustrate that the war remains far more complex than a straightforward story of overwhelming military dominance by any side.
One of the most visible political messages came during the Qods Day rallies held across Iran, particularly in Tehran. Iranian state media broadcast images showing large crowds and the participation of senior government officials, including President Masoud Pezeshkian, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani, Judiciary Chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, prominent cleric Ahmad Arafi, members of the Guardian Council, and other senior officials. Coming amid ongoing strikes and in the wake of executed and threatened assassinations of senior officials, the appearances projected resolution and defiance.
By attending the rally in person, Iranian officials sought to convey that they were not paralyzed by security concerns and were willing to appear publicly alongside ordinary supporters despite the risks of attack. At several moments during the demonstrations, explosions were reported in central Tehran near the rally route, including near areas surrounding Revolution Street and other central districts. In some cases the blasts occurred not far from where senior officials were present, reinforcing the impression that the leadership deliberately chose to remain visible in public rather than retreat entirely into protected facilities.
The rally therefore served as a deliberate wartime signal. Iranian authorities wanted to demonstrate that the government remains present, that the streets remain under its control, and that it continues to possess organized supporters capable of mobilizing publicly even during wartime. While this does not indicate universal public support for the government, it does show that the Islamic Republic still retains a committed base willing to mobilize in the political space despite airstrikes and security risks.
In recent days, Israel has also shifted part of its targeting strategy toward Iran’s internal security apparatus inside Tehran. After Basij forces reportedly established new checkpoints across various parts of the capital, the Israeli Air Force - guided by Israeli military intelligence - conducted coordinated strikes against these checkpoints and the forces stationed at them. Data compiled by the U.S.-based Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) recorded at least 18 Israeli strikes on Basij checkpoints on Wednesday alone, most of them inside Tehran. According to the same dataset, approximately 30 percent of Israel’s recorded strikes in recent days have allegedly targeted Iranian internal security and repression institutions rather than conventional military assets. Analysts suggest that these operations may be designed not only to degrade the regime’s coercive capabilities but also to encourage domestic unrest by weakening the government’s ability to control protests and internal dissent, effectively opening a potential internal front within Iran. However, the Qods Day turnout suggests that these efforts have not yet weakened who is in control of the streets.
This matters because an apparent assumption in U.S., Israel and among some anti-government Iranians early in the war was that the killing of Iran’s former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on the first day of the conflict might quickly destabilize the Iranian political system. Some observers believed that removing the central figure of the Islamic Republic would trigger rapid fragmentation at the top of the state. So far, however, there is no clear evidence that the Iranian government is collapsing.
If such expectations existed in Washington, they likely reflected a misunderstanding of how the Iranian political system operates. The Islamic Republic is not structured around a single individual alone but around a layered network of institutions, including the Revolutionary Guards, Basij mobilization structures, clerical institutions, security organizations, and an extensive bureaucratic apparatus. The death of a supreme leader is undeniably a major shock, but it does not automatically dismantle the broader institutional framework that sustains the system.
The ambiguity surrounding Mojtaba Khamenei, who was appointed as the new Supreme Leader following his father’s death, has also contributed to the political narrative of the war. Reports from Iranian political figures indicate that he survived at least two assassination attempts during attacks on leadership facilities, including a strike that reportedly killed members of his family. Yet no public video or audio appearance from him has been released since his appointment, which has fueled speculation about his physical condition. While he may have been wounded, there is no independently confirmed evidence establishing the extent of his injuries. U.S. officials, including President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, have suggested that Mojtaba Khamenei may have been wounded during the initial attacks, while some Iranian officials insist he remains in control and directing the country’s response.
At the military level, the United States maintains that it has inflicted extensive damage on Iranian military capabilities. According to U.S. Central Command, more than 6,000 targets inside Iran have been struck, including radar systems, command centers, missile production sites, weapons factories, and elements of Iran’s naval infrastructure. American officials claim that the campaign has severely degraded Iran’s conventional capabilities, stating that a large portion of Iran’s missile launchers, air defense systems, and naval assets have been destroyed or damaged, and that the United States continues to prioritize strikes against potential Iranian minelaying operations in the Strait of Hormuz.
However, the operational picture appears more complex than those claims alone might suggest. Iran’s military strategy has long relied heavily on missiles, drones, and dispersed launch systems rather than traditional air power or large conventional formations. Despite the scale of U.S. strikes, Iran continues to launch missiles toward Israeli territory - increasingly in tandem with Hezbollah - and to deploy drones across the region, indicating that these capabilities have not been neutralized. While American officials argue that Iranian missile and drone capacities have been significantly reduced, ongoing launches suggest that Iran retains enough surviving systems to continue retaliatory operations.
The United States lost six servicemembers amid the crash of a U.S. KC-135 Stratotanker aerial refueling aircraft in western Iraq. The U.S. Central Command stated “The circumstances of the incident are under investigation. However, the loss of the aircraft was not due to hostile fire or friendly fire. The identities of the service members are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin have been notified.” Reports also indicated a second U.S. KC-135 was damaged and made an emergency landing in Israel. At least 13 U.S. servicemembers have been killed in 14 days of the war, with at least 140 injuries.
Shortly after the crash, however, the group known as the Islamic Resistance in Iraq - an umbrella network of Iran-aligned militias - claimed responsibility for attacking the tanker aircraft. Whether or not that claim is accurate, the incident highlights the strategic importance of tanker aircraft in modern air warfare.
Aerial refueling aircraft such as the KC-135 are essential to sustaining long-range air operations. They have allowed Israeli and U.S. fighter jets and bombers to remain airborne longer, extend their operational reach, and maintain a high tempo of strikes over distant targets. If Iran-aligned groups in Iraq or elsewhere were able to consistently disrupt tanker operations or threaten the airspace and bases supporting them, it could have significant consequences for the U.S. air campaign. Even limited interference with refueling operations could reduce sortie duration, complicate flight planning, and increase the logistical burden of maintaining sustained air pressure on Iran.
Beyond the battlefield, the conflict is increasingly affecting regional stability and global economic conditions. Oil prices have climbed toward roughly $100 per barrel, driven by fears of prolonged disruption in the Persian Gulf and uncertainty surrounding maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most critical energy corridors in the world. Iranian authorities have indicated that they now exercise tight control over maritime passage in the strait, warning that vessels must obtain authorization before crossing the strategic waterway.
Reports indicate that at least thirteen commercial vessels have been attacked in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Gulf of Oman. Several of these incidents involved ships struck by projectiles or explosive-laden remote vessels, leading to fires, casualties among crews, and the suspension of some regional oil exports. In one recent incident, two oil tankers were struck near Iraqi waters close to the port of Umm Qasr, causing fires on both vessels and resulting in at least one reported fatality. Maritime rescue teams were forced to evacuate dozens of crew members as regional shipping companies began reconsidering whether to risk passage through the strait.
Some regional governments have already begun adjusting to the situation. Turkey confirmed that one of its ships was allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz only after receiving permission from Tehran, while several additional vessels remain waiting for clearance. At the same time, France and Italy have reportedly begun diplomatic discussions with Iran aimed at securing safe maritime passage, reflecting growing concern among European states about the potential disruption of global shipping.
The broader geopolitical implications of the conflict are also becoming increasingly visible. Russia welcomed the United States’ temporary easing of sanctions on Russian oil purchases, viewing the move as an attempt to stabilize energy markets amid the war. Analysts estimate that the surge in oil prices during the first week of the conflict alone generated billions of dollars in additional revenue for Moscow, which is in the midst of a long war of attrition following its invasion of Ukraine.
Regional security tensions are also expanding geographically. NATO air defenses reportedly intercepted an Iranian ballistic missile that entered Turkish airspace, while Saudi Arabia announced that its air defense systems had shot down more than twenty drones approaching its territory. In Iraq’s Kurdish region near Erbil, a French soldier was killed and several others wounded in a drone attack, highlighting the growing risk to international forces operating in the wider theater of the war.
Inside Iran, the humanitarian consequences of the conflict continue to grow. According to figures released by the Iranian Ministry of Health, the war has resulted in thousands of civilian casualties, including 2,729 injured women and 223 women killed, as well as 1,190 injured minors and at least 202 children under the age of eighteen killed. More than 150 health centers have reportedly been damaged, several hospitals have been evacuated, and dozens of ambulances have been destroyed during the strikes.
At the same time, international political pressure is growing over the bombing of the girls’ school in Minab, which Iranian authorities say killed 175 civilians, including around 110 children, during the early stages of the war. 46 U.S. senators and 121 Representatives have demanded a formal answer from the Pentagon regarding whether American forces were responsible for the strike and whether outdated targeting data may have contributed to the tragedy, along with additional details on steps the Department of War is taking to minimize civilian harm and comply with the laws of war. Reporting has indicated that officials conducting an internal investigation believe the U.S. is at fault, which would make the incident one of the deadliest civilian casualty events associated with U.S. military operations in the Middle East in recent decades.
Taken together, these developments suggest that the war has entered a stage characterized by mutual endurance rather than rapid collapse. The United States and Israel have clearly inflicted significant military damage on Iran’s conventional infrastructure, yet Iran continues to maintain retaliatory missile and drone operations, retain organized political control at home, and exert influence through regional networks.
The Qods Day rallies therefore represented more than a symbolic event. They were intended as a wartime demonstration that the Iranian government remains operational, continues to mobilize loyal supporters, and is not retreating from public political life despite ongoing military pressure. At the same time, the crash of the U.S. tanker aircraft in Iraq - combined with the continued activity of regional militias - serves as a reminder that the logistical backbone of the U.S. military campaign remains exposed to asymmetric disruption. In short, the conflict is increasingly revealing itself as a prolonged regional struggle shaped by military pressure, political resilience, and asymmetric counter-strategies, rather than a rapid campaign leading to the immediate collapse of one side.