Iran’s Small Wars Theory & Escalation Dynamics with Israel

Report Date: June 19, 2025
Author: Ross Waguespack

Executive Summary

Iran is clearly using the “small wars theory” to exploit its proxy network and asymmetric capabilities to trigger Israel continually. Tehran seeks to elicit an Israeli overreaction, expose Israeli vulnerabilities, gain regional support, and potentially draw the U.S. into a multi-theater conflict. The recent escalation—with drone, rocket salvos, and Israeli strikes on Iranian territory—suggests Iran is nearing its desired threshold for conventional confrontation. The nuclear rhetoric amplifies miscalculation risk.

Scope & Objectives

This report analyzes Iran’s current and historical use of “small wars theory” principles in its conflict with Israel, focusing on non-conventional tactics, proxy warfare, and indirect escalation to provoke a disproportionate Israeli response leading to open conflict.

Identify Iranian tactics aligning with small wars theory
Assess Israeli responses for signs of strategic baiting
Evaluate effectiveness of Iran’s asymmetric escalation
Forecast potential future escalation paths

Methodology

Sources for open-source intelligence gathering are myriad and include international news media coverage, academic analysis, credible think tank reports, official government statements from all involved parties, and validated social media analysis. This assessment will employ “Small Wars Theory” principles (such as indirect approach, protracted conflict, asymmetry, political aims and objectives, using proxies, etc.) as a primary analysis lens. The assessment will employ Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs) such as Key Assumptions Check and Red Team Analysis to question our own biases and also look at posing the questions from an adversarial perspective. Peer reviewed literatures states that probabilistic assessments reflect the past are best when undertaken using some of the principles of Superforecasting and are undertaken in the spot of many various potential futures. Reports will be ready mid-day.

Disclaimer: This report is based entirely on publicly available sources. It reflects the author’s analytical judgment and does not represent official views of any government or institution. All assessments are subject to revision as new information emerges.

Background: Understanding “Small Wars Theory” in the Iranian Context

At its core, “small wars theory” identifies wars waged for political reasons using irregular forces, and that frequently exhibit long engagements, limited convention, and asymmetric conflict. Academically, the object of these conflicts differs to those of conventional warfare; instead of defeating the enemy through sheer military force, the objective is to wear the enemy down through consistent pressure, ensuring that an operational environment exists where enemy vulnerabilities can be exploited to political ends, even if the political ends go unrecognized by the attacked state.

In Iran’s case, “small wars theory” is not confined to the academic discourse; it underlies Iranian national security. Because Iran has a comparatively limited conventional force and conventional military compared to regional and world powers, Iran has embraced asymmetric warfare, and in many ways will remain heavily reliant on asymmetry and low-intensity warfare through proxies. It is important to underline that Iran’s nationality of it’s “small wars” doctrine in many ways rests on its decision to support and develop a proxy network (primarily through Shi’a Islam). Iran’s proxies allow it to manage its influence and project power through proxies while driving up cost to its adversaries without actually using its own slightly more conventional forces (along with a little bit of plausible deniability, tracking barriers to retaliating against an entire state).

This allows Iran to continue to probe and pressure a likely enemy like Israel, often seeking conditions to provoke a reaction from Israel that can feed into Tehran’s longer strategic goals.

Findings: Iranian Tactics & Escalation Examples

Recent events and enduring patterns demonstrate Iran’s consistent application of small wars tactics against Israel:

Asymmetric Pressure

Rocket & Drone Barrages: Iranian-supported groups (Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah) have consistently launched rockets and drones into Israeli territory. Even though some rockets and drones are often intercepted by Israeli air defenses (such as Iron Dome), the cumulative sheer number and ability to sustain these attacks is likely intended to inflict psychological pressure, to sabotage daily life, and ultimately to exhaust and deplete Israeli resources. The newest “Operation True Promise 3” rocket and drone attacks should be measured in hundreds of missiles and drones. The last incident has increased the quality of these attacks.
Cyber Ops: The dramatic rise in cyberattacks against Israeli infrastructure (one report indicated a 700% increase) fits with asymmetric warfare. Cyber operations can disrupt essential services, steal valuable data, and create a psychological warfare effect without entering a kinetic contest.
Border Provocations: Intermittent, often deniable, cross-border incursions or limited activities from Syrian or Lebanese territory (often with the involvement of Hezbollah or Iranian proxies) challenge Israeli resolve and establish “facts on the ground” in disputed areas.
Maritime Disruption: When Houthis attack shipping in the Red Sea, they are targeting international shipping primarily. However, by targeting shipping lanes that are essential to Israel’s economy and security, both indirectly applies pressure to Israel by destroying trade routes and by extending those “small war” pressure points even further.
Information Warfare: Consistently, Iran and its proxies view Israel’s defensive or retaliatory acts as disproportionate acts of aggression against civilians that are intended to invoke regional and international sympathy for the ‘resistance’ and delegitimize Israel internationally. Iranian state media and social media are heavily used for this purpose, including issuing direct warnings for Israeli civilians to evacuate.
Psychological & Sociopolitical Tactics: Iranian state-aligned media and state proxy media accounts often promote internal political or social divisions within Israel and seek to widen these fissures to reduce cooperation and national cohesion, thereby weakening Israel’s ability to confront examples of Iranian strategic authority as one unit.

Strategic Analysis

Iran’s Strategic Goals

Deterrence by Attrition: Through consistently applying low level but persistent costs (disrupted air travel, psychological stress, expending resources on missile defence), Iran seeks to make the status quo increasingly untenable for Israel but not to the extent of provoking a conventional response which Iran cannot withstand. In this way, it is testing Israel’s strategic patience.
Provocation for Overreaction: The main aim of “baiting” is to procure an inflated or politically-damaging Israeli conventional response. An over-reaction by Israel involving either excessive civilian casualties or damage to Iranian sovereign territory creates the opportunities for several Iranian objectives:
- Solidifies the Axis of Resistance
- Invites international condemnation of Israel
- Justifies Iranian nuclear ambitions
- May trigger U.S. entry or increased regional deployment
Destabilize Israel Politically: Sustained low-level conflict and the perceived inability to achieve decisive victory can exacerbate internal political and social tensions within Israel, undermining public confidence in leadership and military effectiveness.

Israel’s Shift Israel has tended to operate under a doctrine of decisive use of force and its retaliation tends to be quick. However, a “small wars” context makes maintaining that doctrine challenging. Recent Israeli actions – especially the considerable airstrikes of sovereign Iranian territory and direct targeting of nuclear-connected facilities – indicate a policy shift away from shadow war tactics to direct, overt confrontation. In other words, Israel has acted to escalate the cost to Iran, and to perhaps find a mechanism to disincentivize further asymmetric attacks.

Red Team View (Iranian Perspective)

From Tehran’s standpoint: From Iran’s viewpoint, Israel’s increasingly aggressive and direct strikes may actually be what Tehran is looking for. If Israel’s response is to spend large conventional assets (including recruiting and training reserves) and risks international ire to respond to asymmetric provocations, Iran could see this as a successful “baiting.” Iran has successfully baited Israel into operating in a way that, while militarily expensive to Iran, advances its narrative of victimhood and resistance and possibly drags always larger powers into the conflict. Iran may consider certain Israeli sites (such as nuclear-related ones) to be acceptable losses if it pushes the conflict into a desired “open war” stage.

Cross-Regional Implications

The Iran-Israel dynamic is not in a vacuum. The unified statement condemning Israeli activity from Russia and China, along with some explicit indications of mediation, reflects a strengthening “Adversary Entente” designed to counteract the West. The instability globally is likely contributing to “Theater Multiplication Risk.” A U.S. increasingly engaged in the Middle East could drain resources or simply attention from Russia’s war in Ukraine. Having a distraction may allow China a window to operate in the Taiwan Strait and North Korea to pursue objectives on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea’s recent condemnation of Israel along with its ever deepening military-economic relationships with Russia (i.e., sending workers to Kursk), indicates a multi-faceted and coordinated effort to engage in seamless challenges to the west strategic bandwidth.

Actor	Role	Implication
Russia	Diplomatic cover	Weakens U.S. influence in Middle East
China	Possible mediator	Leverage for Taiwan or global prestige
North Korea	Strategic distractor	Pulls U.S. bandwidth through weapons/missile threats

Conclusion

It seems clear that Iran’s strategy of using its “small wars theory” is succeeding in luring Israel into more direct and overt conflict. While Israel’s counter-strikes are significant and militarily damaging, they might inadvertently lead to Iran’s ultimate goal of escalating the conflict in a way that changes the balance of forces in the region and tests Western strategic depth. The nuclear component of Iran’s rhetoric and the unified posture of the “Adversary Entente” together suggest that Tehran is calculating a degree of risk to achieve more significant geostrategic goals.

Probabilistic Forecasts

Scenario	7-Day	30-Day	Notes
U.S. Direct Intervention	25%	40%	Depends on Iranian escalation or Israeli request
Second Major Iranian Strike	55%	70%	High probability if deep strikes continue
Iran Resumes Nuclear Weapons Program	15%	45%	Escalation-driven, rhetoric already suggests possibility
Full Proxy Network Activation	40%	65%	Likely if Israel escalates within Iranian borders

What-If Scenarios

Israel shows extreme restraint: Iran might intensify its proxy attacks to test Israel’s resolve, or pivot to alternative methods of pressure if “baiting” fails. This could lead to internal Israeli political pressure.
Israeli precision strike on Iranian leadership/nuclear figure: This could trigger immediate, severe retaliation from Iran and its proxies, potentially bringing the conflict to a regional tipping point and escalating to all-out war as Iran vows.
High civilian casualties: This could ignite global outrage, forcing international intervention, or provide political cover for a significant escalation from either side, making de-escalation far more difficult.
China brokers ceasefire: While temporarily reducing kinetic activity, it might allow Iran to reconstitute forces and reinforce its proxies, and China would gain significant diplomatic leverage at the expense of U.S. influence.

Sources

Flashpoint: Escalation in the Middle East: Tracking the Israel–Iran Conflict Across Military and Cyber Domains (June 13, 2025)
Amnesty International: Urgent need to protect civilians amid unprecedented escalation in hostilities between Israel and Iran (June 18, 2025)
Institute for the Study of War (ISW): Adversary Entente Task Force Update (June 18, 2025)
CBS News: Trump says no decision yet on U.S. joining Israel’s attacks on Iran, after Iran warns it would risk “all-out war” (June 18, 2025)
Al Jazeera: Russia-Ukraine war: Today’s latest from Al Jazeera (June 19, 2025)
National Security Journal: North Korea Is Sending Another 6000 People to Kursk, After 6000 Troops were Casualties (June 18, 2025)
Azat TV: Kim Jong Un Quietly Advances North Korea’s Nuclear Program Amid Global Tensions (June 19, 2025)
General OSINT Aggregators & News:
- Haaretz.com
- KyivIndependent.com
- Reuters.com
- Associated Press (APNews.com)
- United States Department of Defense (Defense.gov)
- Relevant YouTube news channels (e.g., DD India News Hour, Times of India, Al Jazeera English) for real-time reporting on events and official statements (not for analytical content).