Is Speed the New Strategy in Modern Warfare?
Alex Rosado argues that President Trump’s swift strike shattered Iran’s war plans, proving that speed and precision can stop prolonged conflict and redefine U.S. strategy in the Middle East.
Alex Rosado
Jul 1, 2025 - 8:49 PM
Share
Trump Stops a Middle East War
On June 24, President Trump brokered a historic ceasefire between Israel and Iran, ending two weeks of armed escalation. America not only blunted Iranian ambition but also prevented the downward spiral of another Middle Eastern “forever war.”
Iran’s aggressive moves aimed to overwhelm Israel’s defenses and disrupt international trade, all under the pretense of maintaining its civilian nuclear program. U.S. intelligence, however, exposed that Iran’s uranium extraction was aimed at nuclear weapons development. President Trump ordered a precise, fatality-free airstrike that thoroughly dismantled Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. U.S.-Qatar coordination later mitigated Iran’s retaliatory strike against an American base in Qatar. Weakened on the world stage, Iran opted for peace, which currently holds strong despite initial violations.
Iran’s Risky Power Play
The “twelve-day war” was one of speed, and President Trump was the quickest to the draw. Iran’s mobilization combined external relations and internal strife, but America’s concise, one-off contribution capped Iran’s capacity to further the struggle.
In 2010, Alexander Libman, then an Assistant Professor at the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management, analyzed the concept of a “small, victorious war” as a political strategy. Libman defines the tactic as a limited military conflict used by autocratic regimes to consolidate power, suppress revolution, and distract from domestic unrest. However, when blinded by zealous claims to power, leaders may overestimate their military’s capabilities, sometimes leading to defeat and, in extreme scenarios, regime change.
Libman’s theory found validation in the lead-up to Iran’s attack on Israel. Iran refused to commit to a nuclear peace agreement after sixty days of negotiation; the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran enriched enough military-grade uranium to violate their non-proliferation obligations. Domestically, Iran’s currency has plummeted in value, and most citizens are malnourished, leading to nationwide protests in May over energy and infrastructure insecurity.
When Israel launched Operation Rising Lion on key nuclear sites in Iran, it justified Iran’s focus on power projection over internal narratives, deeming the offense a “declaration of war.” Libman predicted that investments in domestic and foreign conflicts are complementary and that the pursuit of a "small, victorious war" is more likely when political bias is prevalent or when the military is a regime’s foundation. Indeed, Iran’s resentment of Israel and its bombing of Israeli government buildings, energy plants, and research facilities was expected to have a swift and favorable outcome to present a persona of decisive authority.
The Strike That Changed Everything
Unfortunately for Iran, President Trump saw through their disguise. The war’s infancy granted Trump an array of economic and diplomatic options on how to engage, but his cold calculus and intelligence favored a one-time blow that would deter spillover and carnage. In any war, urgency out of the gate produces the space for negotiations, terminates the entrenchment of positions, and stops the accumulation of grievances that push peace out of reach. Moreover, timeliness limits the scale of civilian harm, a crucial component given Iran’s rocket firing on Israeli residential complexes.
Although some of today’s political observers disagree, military history views initial and spectacular displays of force as effective war-enders. In Stephen Biddle’s Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle, his empirical research showed that wars tend to be shorter and less destructive when one side achieves rapid dominance early on, as it limits the enemy’s ability to adapt or prolong the fighting. Colin S. Gray published The Strategy Bridge in 2011, arguing that rapid campaigns break the enemy’s will to fight and shatter their cohesion. Armed with this knowledge, President Trump made the call, crippled three of Iran’s nuclear facilities with Israel, and declared the operation complete.
New Rules for Regional Peace
With a sole operation, President Trump wielded Iran’s vision of a “small, victorious war” against them. Iran lost control of the tempo and narrative as its attempt at a quick and resolute campaign was overshadowed by a U.S. strike that was even more sudden and conclusive. The conditions fostered an Iranian response against the American Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar under unfavorable conditions and left little impact—a “very weak” attack, per the president. Trump then dictated the terms of de-escalation, turning the episode into a case study of American power and Iranian vulnerability.
Trump’s gamble with Iran proved the United States could execute a short-term offense and deny Iran the opportunity to extend it. The strike set expectations in the Middle East that U.S. involvement would be a powerful and conditional last resort, which is beneficial for long-term restraint, deterrence, and stability. Whether Iran or Israel disrupt the ceasefire remains to be seen, but the lessons from Iran mean any penchant for conflict, regardless of scope, will not be taken lightly under Trump’s presidency.
Share
Alex Rosado
Donor Relations Associate and Database Manager, Hudson Institute