Programmes

The fundamental character of modern aerospace warfare has undergone an irreversible paradigm shift, transitioning abruptly from the deployment of exquisite, highly survivable platforms to the brutal arithmetic of industrial attrition and affordable mass. This operational reality was starkly illuminated in late February 2026, with the commencement of Operation Epic Fury by the United States Armed Forces and the parallel Operation Roaring Lion executed by the Israel Defence Forces.   Following the collapse of nuclear negotiations, the allied coalition launched a massive preemptive military campaign. Deploying an overwhelming concentration of aerospace assets, the coalition struck over one thousand strategic targets deep within Iranian territory during the opening twenty-four hours. United States forces executed over nine hundred individual precision strikes in the first twelve hours alone, utilising stealth bombers, naval fighters, and cruise missiles, escalating to more than one thousand, two hundred, and fifty targeted strikes within forty-eight hours. Simultaneously, the Israeli Air Force conducted over seven hundred sorties on the first day, dropping more than one thousand two hundred munitions to achieve immediate tactical successes and air superiority.   However, the immediate and sustained retaliation by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, designated Operation True Promise IV, has placed an unprecedented and mathematically gruelling strain on the allied integrated air and missile defence architecture. Within the first forty-eight hours of the conflict, the adversary entente launched roughly four hundred and twenty medium-range ballistic missiles targeting many countries in the region. This barrage was accompanied by massive swarms of loitering munitions. The staggering depletion rates of multimillion-dollar interceptors and precision strike munitions against high-volume, low-cost adversary threats have exposed a profound mathematical vulnerability in contemporary military logistics. As the global defence industrial base proves incapable of replenishing these exquisite arsenals at the speed of combat consumption, both the allied coalition and the adversary entente are confronting a rapidly approaching logistical exhaustion horizon. To continue the war and secure a decisive strategic victory, it is an absolute strategic imperative for both sides to aggressively substitute these high-end, legacy assets with scalable, cost-asymmetric alternatives, pivoting their operational doctrines toward deployable mass and continuous attritional endurance.

The first quarter of 2026 marked a strategic turning point in the deployment of hard power and the management of geopolitical interaction. For decades, computing technologies remained largely confined to operational support roles, such as processing intelligence data or guiding precision munitions. January and February, however, witnessed a structural shift as military planning moved away from human-dependent decision cycles toward managing autonomous algorithmic kill chains. This transformation was formally articulated in the “Artificial Intelligence Acceleration Strategy” issued by the United States Department of War (DoW) on Jan. 9 2026. The directive aims to entrench American military dominance by rapidly integrating AI across warfighting, intelligence, and enterprise operations, while transforming the defence apparatus into what officials describe as an “AI-first” military structure.   This doctrine rested on strict operational parameters prioritising overwhelming lethality, rapid execution, and objective-driven systems that place mission success above all other considerations, deliberately excluding social and political variables from algorithmic decision cycles to ensure decisive superiority in battlefield decision-making. This shift was reflected in two unprecedented operations: the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro during Operation Absolute Resolve in January 2026, and the decapitation strike targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during Operation Silent Holy City, conducted within Operation Epic Fury in February 2026.   These operations reflected the integration of large language models, dynamic data architectures, tactical assessment algorithms, and autonomous unmanned systems, fundamentally transforming the speed, precision, and geopolitical cost calculus of neutralising high-value targets. Together, they signal that AI has moved beyond a supporting analytical role to become a strategic architect of the battlespace and a driver of kinetic execution.

In remarks on 2 March 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump did not rule out the possibility of sending American ground troops into Iran if it became necessary. However, he didn’t acknowledge that such a move would carry serious risks given Iran’s size and military capability. Any U.S. ground invasion would likely involve significant casualties and could fail to achieve its goals.  Trump has generally shown reluctance to engage in large-scale ground wars. While he has authorized military actions, including airstrikes, against Iran and other states in recent months, his preference historically has been for limited use of force, such as air power and specialized units, rather than deploying tens of thousands of troops.   Part of this approach stems from his broader view that prolonged, chaotic conflicts are unpredictable and often produce uncertain outcomes. Major ground combat operations can create widespread instability and make strategic consequences hard to forecast. Throughout both his first term and the early part of his second term, Trump has shown no strong inclination to commit large numbers of U.S. ground forces abroad.   Trump and Bibi (also known as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) recognize that forcing a full regime change in Tehran would be one of the toughest strategic tasks imaginable. Iran’s political and military structure is robust and not solely driven by personalist rule; it is anchored in a religiously grounded system that has endured since 1979. With the challenges of a successful ground invasion in mind, their current strategy relies on a combination of military pressure and other techniques intended to weaken the regime over time, though there is no guarantee this will bring about its collapse.

At the outset of 2026, the Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape is undergoing a profound reconfiguration driven not only by the outcomes of decisive military engagements but also by the complex and protracted diplomatic process that followed the Twelve-Day War of June 2025. In this context, the return of Iranian and American negotiators to the bargaining tables in Muscat and Geneva does not represent a routine resumption of traditional diplomacy. Rather, it constitutes a tangible expression and an evolved application of a deeply rooted strategic doctrine within the Iranian political mindset, commonly referred to in strategic literature as Bazaar Diplomacy. This approach extends far beyond the superficial notion of commercial bargaining and functions as a doctrine of statecraft, carefully engineered to navigate power asymmetries and confront adversaries endowed with overwhelming military and economic superiority.   At its core, Bazaar diplomacy represents a structural departure from the linear Western models of conflict resolution, which are typically constrained by fixed timelines, electoral cycles, and an urgent drive to reach a comprehensive, final agreement that brings crises to a formal close. For the Iranian negotiator, by contrast, time is neither a neutral container nor an external constraint; it is the primary strategic commodity and the central objective of the process itself. This philosophy is grounded in the notion that sustained, circular engagement in protracted talks is not merely a means to an end but a tactical end in its own right. Such engagement provides essential political cover to absorb peak external pressure, restrains an adversary’s momentum toward military action, and creates critical temporal space to repair internal fractures.   In the current context of 2026, this strategy has assumed existential dimensions that extend beyond routine political manoeuvring. Following the extensive damage inflicted on Iran’s nuclear and defensive infrastructure by U.S. and Israeli strikes in the previous year, and amid an economic collapse that has eroded the national currency and fuelled widespread protests, negotiations are no longer a matter of political discretion but a structural imperative for regime survival. Accordingly, Bazaar diplomacy functions as a refined mechanism of endurance. It deploys constructive ambiguity and offers technically reversible concessions, such as the temporary suspension of enrichment, in exchange for strategic and structural gains that are far more difficult to reverse, including sanctions relief and the entrenchment of economic interdependencies. The central question, therefore, is whether Bazaar diplomacy can ultimately deliver an agreement between Washington and Tehran.