Iran has long presented itself as a formidable military power, but this image doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. While it boasts of its advanced weapons systems, military prowess, and regional influence, the reality is very much to the contrary. The real strength lies not in its armed capabilities but rather in its strategy of asymmetrical warfare and the use of terrorist proxies, which have become its primary assets in asserting influence and conducting operations against any perceived enemies. The country’s use of indirect means to wage war is a reflection of these militaristic limitations.
Tehran’s most effective strategy involves supporting and arming militant groups across the Middle East. These terrorist proxies, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, do much of the country’s heavy lifting. By supporting these groups, Iran can project power and destabilize its rivals from the safety of Tehran, which potentially exposes its true weakness. This strategy allows Iran to fight proxy wars across the region, from Syria to Iraq, while avoiding direct engagements that it may not be victorious in the end.
Hezbollah, for instance, serves as a critical tool in Iran’s foreign policy, not only to threaten Israel but also to act as a deterrent against U.S. intervention in the region. Last year, Hezbollah-Israel skirmishes were an example of how Iran tried to leverage its proxies to strike at its core enemies. However, these actions have rarely resulted in decisive triumphs.
One example, Iran’s direct military response to Israel earlier this year was widely seen as a failure, with the counterattack fizzling out with nothing to gain from it. What was supposed to be a strong show of force ended up being an embarrassing defeat, revealing just how little their military can do without relying on less conventional means.
More recently, Tehran again made headlines when it threatened another large-scale attack on Israel. Iranian officials issued bold promises of a retaliation over the course of several weeks that never materialized. The world watched as Iranian rhetoric heightened tensions, but no significant military action followed. The incident was quietly swept under the rug, with the leadership likely aware that they could not follow through on their threats without risking further humiliation.
Repeated failures to respond militarily highlight the regime’s bluff—its threats often go unanswered because they often lack the capacity to back them up. Instead, it prefers to intimidate its enemies with the fear of terrorism or other means, knowing that more direct engagements could expose severe vulnerabilities.
They’re still undeniably the biggest troublemaker in the Middle East, constantly fueling instability and conflict across the region. Involvement in various proxy wars, sponsorship of terrorist organizations, and ongoing efforts to undermine neighboring governments have made Iran the primary source of regional unrest. From Lebanon to Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and beyond, Iran’s disruptive actions have kept the region in a perpetual state of conflict and uncertainty. The current conflict between Israel and hezbollah are an ideal example of such chaos.
Aside from its militaristic shortcomings, Iran has maintained its influence through more nefarious tactics, like hostage-taking, for instance. They have a long history of detaining foreign nationals—especially Americans and other Westerners—to use them as bargaining chips in negotiations with what they call enemies. This tactic has served as a form of state-sanctioned terrorism, enabling Iran to secure diplomatic or financial concessions in exchange for the release those hostages, with the latter not being too dissimilar from North Korea’s nuclear blackmail.
One of the most recent examples occurred just last year, when Iran agreed to release five U.S. citizens who had been wrongfully detained for years. In exchange, the U.S. unfroze $6 billion in Iranian assets held in South Korea. While the deal was criticized by some as giving Iran economic leverage, it highlighted how hostage-taking has become a core element of Iran’s foreign policy. The US nationals, including Siamak Namazi, Morad Tahbaz, and Emad Sharghi, were finally allowed to leave the country after years of being imprisoned on dubious charges of espionage. This release coincided with a major anniversary of U.S.-Iran negotiations, underscoring how Iran continues to use innocent lives as pawns in its own geopolitical game of chess.
Iran’s economy is also heavily reliant on its vast oil reserves, which it uses to maintain a large degree of geopolitical influence. Despite years of sanctions, energy has remained as another bargaining chip, allowing it to secure trade deals with countries like China and India as well as aiding to supply Russia with much-needed resources amidst its war in Ukraine. In addition, this oil industry has enabled it to build alliances with nations that are also hostile to the West, like Russia, who has had to turn to Iranian oil and weapons in order to mask its own shortcomings. The Shahed drones, in particular, have been deployed extensively by Russian forces, making Iran an active participant in Europe’s most recent conflict. This mutually beneficial relationship allows Iran to maintain strategic ties with a major global power, even while its own military falters when directly challenged. This alliance shares more than trade, though, as both countries have been implicated in sponsoring acts of terrorism or terror-like warfare. Russia’s acts against nearby nations have involved numerous human rights abuses, civilian massacres, and targeted infrastructure attacks that qualify as terror in the eyes of many international observers. The relationship is also built on shared disdain for Western powers with a common interest in destabilizing regions where the US and European influence are widely projected. By supporting Russia, Iran ensures that its geopolitical ally remains intact, while also gaining access to Russia’s own technological expertise, potentially nuclear.
Militarily, it’s clear that Iran lacks the ability to mount any large-scale operations. Despite investments in ballistic missiles, air defenses, and naval assets, the bulk of its forces are outgunned and outdated. Its air force, for example, consists largely of aging aircraft that are several decades old, and its navy is no match for the more advanced fleets belonging to other players in the region, such as the US and Israel. This primarily leaves ballistic missiles, which can strike targets in the region but lack the necessary precision and reliability to carry any major strategic advantage for the long term. The regime has tested these missiles in high-profile incidents, such as the strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq following the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani in 2020, but these attacks have largely been symbolic and failed to deliver the blow that Tehran had hoped to achieve.
In short, Iran’s military might is more myth than reality. It is unable to project power independently, and its reliance on terrorist proxies, hostage-taking, and oil diplomacy are all signs of a regime that is incapable of any conventional military dominance, which may be the main reason for their pursued interest in nuclear weapons. While it will continue to cause instability and act as a regional spoiler, its image as a powerful armed force is largely a facade. This belief appears to be growing throughout the region as more actors are now taking a bolder stance with more of this apparently coming to light.
Iran may position itself as a major power, but recent events really tell a different story. Their most potent weapon clearly isn’t the military, but rather the ability to sow instability through indirect means, whether by backing terrorist groups, detaining foreign nationals, or supplying weapons to allies like Russia. While Tehran may continue to threaten and bluster, its actual capacity for direct confrontation remains limited, making its claims of domination more of an illusion than reality.
