After three months of war with two of the world's most technologically and militarily advanced countries, Iran has proved far more resilient than anticipated. Indeed, strategically at least, Tehran appears to now have the upper hand in the conflict. How has this situation come about?

When the United States joined Israel to launch the latest war with Iran in late February 2026, the prognosis did not look good for the regime in Tehran.

In attacking Iran, the US and Israel set up a highly asymmetric conflict. It pitted the Islamic Republic against two nuclear-armed adversaries who boast some of the most advanced military capabilities on the planet. And the scale of the US and Israeli intervention was far larger than anything Iran has experienced in decades.

Over the course of several weeks, Iran was pounded relentlessly with the full force of US and Israeli air and missile power. Precision strikes and targeted assassinations removed key members of Iran's political and military leadership – including the supreme leader and commander-in-chief, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The country's air and naval combat capabilities were decimated, hundreds of its missile launchers and air defense systems were destroyed and its internal security apparatus was severely degraded. The country's nuclear facilities and missile and drone factories were bombed with thousands of pounds of munitions.

Iran moved quickly to replace its leadership and use its remaining military capabilities to strike back at its attackers and their allies. But by any measure, the Islamic Republic was facing an existential threat.

At that point, it seemed almost inconceivable that Iran might avoid capitulation, survive politically, and recover its position so far as to gain leverage in its dealings with the US. Yet that is exactly the scenario that has played out.

As Jerusalem-based Middle East expert Daniel Sobelman explains, in an asymmetric conflict where a weaker actor is pitted against a superior adversary, the weaker actor must tilt the "balance of vulnerability" in its favor to avoid total defeat. To do this, it must ensure the survivability of its critical military capabilities and it must exploit the vulnerabilities of its adversaries.

This type of logic has long been a feature of Iranian strategic thinking. Officials have often emphasized the importance of exploiting the points of vulnerability or weakness of Iran's adversaries, while minimizing their own, as a key element of both asymmetric deterrence and warfighting.

Tehran's prewar deterrence posture clearly failed to prevent US and Israeli attacks. Yet over the past three months, Iran has shifted the balance of vulnerability. It has imposed severe costs, escalated its attacks and exploited vulnerabilities in ways that helped it not only survive but also force its adversaries to a ceasefire.