Today is March 19, 2026. Since the first missile struck Tehran on February 28, 2026, this world-shaking conflict has now lasted for 20 days. This is not merely a technological contest between drones and interception systems—it is a high-level battle of minds.
Across a multi-dimensional battlefield stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean and southern Lebanon, anyone familiar with my previous Art of War series will recognize this war as a real-world testing ground for classical strategy.
Using the framework of the first eight chapters of The Art of War, let us break down how the United States, Israel, and Iran have fought over these 20 days:
Who is closer to Sun Tzu’s concept of “invincibility”, and who has fallen into the traps of prolonged warfare and strategic exhaustion?
Background: From Proxy War to Direct Confrontation
On February 28, the United States and Israel launched a preemptive large-scale joint strike against Iran. Early reports suggested that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, was killed in the initial wave of airstrikes, rapidly escalating the situation from proxy conflict to direct state-on-state confrontation.
In response, Iran launched multiple waves of ballistic missiles and drones targeting Israel and several Gulf states. Meanwhile, U.S. and allied forces continued striking Iranian military infrastructure, including radar systems, naval vessels, and ballistic missile facilities.
By the third week, the battlefield expanded into the energy domain. Following Israel’s suspected strike on Iran’s South Pars gas field, Iran retaliated by targeting Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG facilities and energy sites in the UAE. Oil prices briefly surged to $110 per barrel. U.S. President Donald Trump warned publicly that if Iran attacked Qatari LNG again, the U.S. would “wipe out the entire South Pars field.”
Simultaneously, Israel claimed to have eliminated key Iranian figures, including security chief Ali Larijani and intelligence minister Khatib. In retaliation, Iran launched cluster-munition missiles toward the Tel Aviv metropolitan area (including Ramat Gan), causing civilian casualties and infrastructure damage.
At sea, multiple U.S. carrier strike groups operated across the Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and Eastern Mediterranean, suppressing Iran’s naval and mine-laying capabilities. During this period, the USS Gerald R. Ford reportedly experienced a fire incident requiring port maintenance, yet U.S. naval operations continued at high intensity.
I. Laying Plans (始計): Evaluating the Five Fundamentals
“War is a matter of vital importance to the state; the realm of life and death, the way to survival or ruin. It must be thoroughly examined.”
Sun Tzu emphasizes five key factors before engaging in war: Dao (moral alignment), Heaven (timing), Earth (terrain), General (leadership), and Law (organization).
Applying this framework:
The United States – Dao (Moral Cohesion):
Domestic political divisions have led to inconsistent messaging from the White House regarding war objectives—from dismantling Iran’s missile industry to forcing capitulation. Congressional debates over authorization and cost further weaken strategic clarity. When “Dao” is unstable, strategic objectives blur.
Israel – Earth and General:
Facing simultaneous threats in southern Lebanon, homeland air defense, and long-range strikes from Iran, Israel has pursued decapitation strikes and deep operations to seize strategic initiative, while expanding ground operations against Hezbollah to increase defensive depth.
Iran – Heaven and Earth:
Iran leverages geographic advantage by linking the Strait of Hormuz to global energy markets. This is a classic strategic calculation—using economic vulnerability to offset military inferiority, expanding the battlefield horizontally to pressure adversaries.
In short, all three actors are making bets across the “Five Factors,” but the inconsistency of U.S.-Israel political signaling and Iran’s energy leverage form the core tension of this war.
II. Waging War (作戰): Victory Over Duration
“In war, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.”
Sun Tzu warns that prolonged war drains national strength. With oil prices surging, shipping disrupted, and military spending skyrocketing, even the U.S. admitted costs exceeded $10 billion in the first week alone—exactly the scenario Sun Tzu feared: prolonged war dulls the army and exhausts resources.
United States:
Maintains sustained air and naval pressure while seeking allied burden-sharing for securing the Strait of Hormuz—yet limited response suggests rising marginal costs of prolonged engagement.
Israel:
Simultaneously managing northern operations, homeland defense, and long-range strikes, facing mounting logistical and societal pressure. The principle of avoiding prolonged war applies just as harshly.
Iran:
While attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure generate global pressure, failure to regain air and naval superiority means the cost of absorbing allied strikes could grow exponentially.
III. Attack by Stratagem (謀攻): The Highest Form of Warfare
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
Measured by this principle:
Israel – Attacking Strategy (伐謀):
Decapitation strikes targeting Iran’s leadership and command structure aim to disrupt strategic coherence and force reactive cycles—classic “attack the enemy’s strategy.”
Iran – Attacking Alliances (伐交):
Strikes on energy infrastructure in Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia aim to fracture U.S.-Israel partnerships and pressure regional actors to push for ceasefire—an attack on alliances.
United States – Hybrid Approach:
Combining kinetic strikes on infrastructure with signaling intent, but inconsistent strategic messaging weakens overall coherence in “attack by stratagem.”
From Sun Tzu’s perspective, none have achieved victory without fighting—but all are attempting to convert battlefield actions into psychological and diplomatic leverage, seeking to force concessions before full-scale ground war.
IV. Military Disposition (軍形): First Make Yourself Invincible
“The skillful fighter first makes himself invincible, and then waits for opportunities to defeat the enemy.”
This chapter focuses on the art of invincibility.
Israel:
Through a multi-layered air defense system, Israel intercepts successive waves of ballistic missiles and cluster munitions. At the same time, it applies the concept of strategic depth to manage threats from southern Lebanon. Its priority is to establish an “invulnerable foundation” (avoiding decisive defeat) before seeking opportunities for victory.
United States:
By deploying aircraft carriers, bombers, and multi-domain strike capabilities, the U.S. keeps the main battlefield concentrated around Iran and offshore areas. Its mobility advantage helps preserve a posture of invincibility. However, any fractures in strategic communication or alliance coordination could erode this “military disposition.”
Iran:
Iran relies on underground infrastructure, decentralization, and multi-front retaliation to avoid being neutralized in a single blow. At the same time, it attempts to trap its adversaries through rising costs. Yet, if the energy and maritime conflicts spiral out of control, it may become increasingly difficult for Iran itself to maintain this state of invincibility.
V. Strategic Momentum (兵勢): Combining the Normal and the Extraordinary
“The rushing force of water can even move stones—this is momentum.”
“Engage with the orthodox, win with the extraordinary.”
Sun Tzu teaches that true power lies in combining conventional (orthodox) operations with unconventional (extraordinary) tactics—such as precision strikes, psychological warfare, and information warfare—to amplify strategic momentum.
United States / Israel:
Using the “orthodox”—carrier-based aviation, long-range bombers, and cruise missiles—to continuously degrade Iran’s hard capabilities;
and the “extraordinary”—decentralized unmanned systems and targeted decapitation strikes—to create confusion and fear within decision-making structures. Together, these generate a compounding strategic momentum.
Iran:
Applies the “extraordinary” by targeting energy hubs and maritime routes, leveraging global markets to amplify its strategic voice;
while using the “orthodox”—sustained ballistic missile strikes—to force Israel to divide its attention and interception resources.
VI. Weakness and Strength (虛實): Strike Where It Hurts Most
“In war, there are no constant conditions, just as water has no constant shape.”
The side that can continuously adapt—shifting points of pressure and changing tactics—can force the opponent into asymmetry.
Iran’s approach is highly典型:
It avoids Israel’s strongest points—densely layered homeland air defenses and direct aerial confrontation—and instead targets vulnerabilities such as Gulf energy infrastructure and maritime routes. At the same time, it retains proxy forces, making it impossible for the U.S. and Israel to eliminate all threats in a single decisive strike.
Israel / United States:
Through rapid intelligence cycles and decapitation of command structures, they attempt to compensate for limited visibility into Iran’s defensive depth. They also extend the battlefield northward (southern Lebanon) and into maritime domains, using their own adaptability to counter Iran’s shifting tactics.
VII. Maneuvering (軍爭): Turning Indirect Paths into Direct Advantage
“Make the indirect route your direct route, and turn adversity into advantage.”
In a crowded and complex battlefield, indirect approaches often lead to faster results. The key is to convert the enemy’s constraints into your advantages.
Iran:
Transforms the global “vulnerability” of the Strait of Hormuz into its own strategic leverage, effectively turning geopolitical risk into a bargaining chip. Until Gulf states and global markets feel sufficient pressure, ceasefire initiatives are unlikely to force the U.S. and Israel to back down.
Israel:
Uses indirect “strategic decapitation” and pressure along the northern front to create psychological access to Iran’s decision-making core, while reinforcing alliances through diplomacy and deterrence.
United States:
Leverages sea and air superiority to establish a maritime line of operations, avoiding entanglement in costly ground warfare—another example of achieving direct objectives through indirect means.
VIII. Adaptability (九變): Mastering Change
The chapter on “Nine Variations” reminds commanders to adapt to terrain, timing, and the enemy—never becoming rigid or bound by fixed patterns.
At present, three key variables define the battlefield:
1. The “Sayability” of Strategic Objectives:
Washington has yet to clearly define its end-state publicly. Without a clear and verifiable path to de-escalation, the risk of prolonged war increases significantly.
2. Opening and Closing of Proxy Fronts:
Hezbollah is intensifying pressure, while the Houthis remain cautious and observant. This “gray zone” represents a critical point of change. Depending on Iran’s battlefield losses and internal coordination, this dynamic could shift rapidly.
3. The Tipping Point of Energy and Shipping Disruption:
Once oil prices and insurance costs trigger global political pressure, regional actors—including potential European involvement in the Eastern Mediterranean—may intervene more aggressively, redefining the battlefield.
Positioning the Three Powers: A Sun Tzu Framework
(1) The United States: Strategy and Application
According to Sun Tzu:
- Attack by Stratagem + Strategic Momentum:
High-intensity air and naval strikes (orthodox) combined with decapitation operations and the dismantling of Iran’s naval, mining, and radar systems (extraordinary) to generate momentum. Examples include strikes on Kharg Island and Iranian naval and drone “mothership” assets. - Military Disposition:
Relies on mobility—carriers and bombers—to avoid being dragged into ground attrition, securing invincibility before pursuing victory. - Maneuvering:
Uses maritime maneuvering to avoid deep entanglement in Iran’s territory, while encouraging allies to share the burden of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open—turning indirect routes into direct advantage.
Risks:
- Waging War (Duration Risk):
Rising war costs and oil prices increase domestic political pressure, while inconsistent strategic narratives weaken overall coherence in “attack by stratagem.” - Laying Plans (Dao and Law):
Alliance mobilization and coordination remain unstable. NATO and regional partners are still hesitant about involvement in Hormuz, affecting the institutional sustainability of prolonged operations.
(2) Israel: Strategy and Application
According to Sun Tzu:
- Attack by Stratagem:
Decapitation of key figures (e.g., Larijani, Khatib) and deep strikes on nuclear and missile infrastructure aim to disrupt both psychological and command structures. - Military Disposition + Strategic Momentum:
Maintains invincibility through layered defense and proactive strikes, while building momentum along the northern front (southern Lebanon) to expand strategic depth. - Maneuvering:
Uses indirect tactics and limited ground incursions to contain Hezbollah, preserving flexibility against Iran’s long-range threats.
Risks:
- Waging War (Time Cost):
Multi-front operations and societal mobilization create cumulative fatigue. Without external ceasefire mechanisms, the risk of prolonged war increases. - Weakness and Strength Backfire:
Iran’s shift toward targeting Gulf energy and civilian infrastructure creates dilemmas—forcing Israel to defend multiple “must-save” points under growing political pressure.
(3) Iran: Strategy and Application
According to Sun Tzu:
- Attack by Stratagem + Alliances:
Direct strikes on energy infrastructure in Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia aim to fracture U.S.-Israel regional alignment and push regional actors toward diplomatic pressure. - Weakness and Strength:
Avoids Israel’s strongest defenses, instead applying asymmetric pressure through energy and maritime domains, while leveraging proxies and multi-front flexibility. - Maneuvering:
Converts the Strait of Hormuz from a global vulnerability into strategic leverage, expanding the geographic scope of the conflict to create global decision-making pressure.
Risks:
- Collapse of Military Disposition:
Under pressure in air, sea, and command-and-control (C2), failure to stabilize could undermine its foundation of invincibility. - Waging War Costs:
If the energy conflict escalates into prolonged disruption, external intervention and internal resilience become critical variables—potentially turning strategic leverage into self-inflicted damage.
A Quick Recap of the First Eight Chapters of The Art of War
Let’s briefly revisit the key insights from the first eight chapters of The Art of War:
1) Laying Plans (始計): Don’t Act Rashly—Plan First
Quote:
“War is a matter of vital importance to the state; the realm of life and death, the way to survival or ruin. It must be thoroughly examined.”
Battlefield Insight:
All three parties are calculating the full equation. Whoever can integrate political cohesion, timing and markets, geographic choke points, leadership tempo, and institutional logistics into a coherent strategy gains the upper hand. At present, the U.S. struggles with narrative clarity, while Iran’s energy leverage remains a decisive factor.
2) Waging War (作戰): Can You Actually Finish the Fight?
Quote:
“In war, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.”
Battlefield Insight:
Oil prices exceeding $100, over $10 billion spent in the first week, and soaring shipping insurance costs—all indicators point to the same truth: speed is not optional; it is discipline.
3) Attack by Stratagem (謀攻): The Highest Skill Is Winning Without Fighting
Quote:
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
Battlefield Insight:
Israel targets strategy (decapitation strikes), Iran targets alliances (energy and Gulf states), while the U.S. oscillates between direct military force and strategic pressure.
4) Military Disposition (軍形): Invincibility Comes First
Quote:
“The skillful fighter first makes himself invincible, and then waits for opportunities to defeat the enemy.”
Battlefield Insight:
Israel builds invincibility through layered air defense and strategic depth;
the U.S. relies on mobile air and naval superiority;
Iran seeks resilience through decentralization.
5) Strategic Momentum (兵勢): Follow the Flow—Combine the Expected and the Unexpected
Quote:
“Engage with the orthodox; win with the extraordinary.”
Battlefield Insight:
The U.S. and Israel combine large-scale firepower (orthodox) with decapitation strikes (extraordinary),
while Iran pairs energy warfare (extraordinary) with sustained missile attacks (orthodox).
6) Weakness and Strength (虛實): Be Like Water—Adapt Constantly
Quote:
“In war, there are no constant conditions, just as water has no constant shape.”
Battlefield Insight:
Iran avoids strong defenses and instead targets energy infrastructure and maritime routes, creating strategic effects through indirect pressure;
the U.S. and Israel respond with multi-domain operations.
7) Maneuvering (軍爭): Winning Through Indirect Paths
Quote:
“Make the indirect route your direct route; turn adversity into advantage.”
Battlefield Insight:
Iran transforms global energy vulnerability into leverage;
the U.S. uses maritime maneuvering to avoid being trapped in ground warfare.
8) Adaptability (九變): Masters Win by Choosing, Not Just Trying Harder
Key Idea:
One must understand change, respond to change, and master change—never becoming rigid.
Battlefield Insight:
All sides are constantly adjusting—from Houthi hesitation, to European naval presence, to Washington’s evolving strategic narrative.
Conclusion: “Invincibility,” “Speed,” and “Winning Without Fighting”
If we distill Sun Tzu’s philosophy into three core principles, they form the three boundaries of this war:
1. Invincibility (Military Disposition)
Any side that gets pulled into the enemy’s tempo—bleeding continuously at its weakest points—loses initiative.
Israel’s air defense and depth,
America’s air-sea mobility,
Iran’s decentralized resilience—
whichever foundation proves more stable will determine leverage at the negotiating table.
Survive first. Win later.
2. Speed (Waging War)
Oil prices, shipping disruption, public sentiment, and fiscal pressure turn war into a compound disaster.
The side that compresses the conflict into weeks rather than months gains the advantage.
War is the erosion of national power—those who drag it out will lose.
3. Winning Without Fighting (Attack by Stratagem)
The highest level of strategy is forcing the opponent to yield within calculation, not declaring victory over ruins.
As decapitation strikes and energy warfare create mutual hostages, all sides will seek an exit mechanism.
The side that can use strategy and diplomacy to guide the opponent toward a rational retreat will be closest to the endgame.
The greatest commander is the one who makes the enemy step back—by choice.
Three Lessons for Business and the Workplace
1. Build an “Invincible Foundation” Before Seeking Victory
Strengthen fundamentals—cash flow, supply chains, cybersecurity—before pursuing aggressive growth.
→ (Military Disposition)
2. Understand Time Cost and Sunk Cost
Avoid projects you cannot finish. Cut losses when necessary. Invest resources where momentum can be created.
→ (Waging War + Strategic Momentum)
3. Indirect Beats Direct
In crowded markets, changing the playing field and targeting critical pressure points is often faster than direct confrontation.
→ (Maneuvering + Weakness and Strength)
References (Selected)
War Developments and Situation Analysis:
Britannica, AP, ISW, CBS, USA Today, Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post
[britannica.com], [apnews.com], [understandingwar.org], [cbsnews.com], [usatoday.com], [aljazeera.com], [jpost.com]
Energy Conflict and Oil Prices:
CBS, USA Today, The Hindu
[cbsnews.com], [usatoday.com], [thehindu.com]
Israeli Decapitation Strikes and Iranian Retaliation:
NPR / KPBS, Al Jazeera
[kpbs.org], [aljazeera.com]
Naval Operations:
Jerusalem Post, Yahoo/Reuters, Army Recognition
[jpost.com], [yahoo.com], [armyrecognition.com]
Costs and Domestic Politics:
Fox7 Austin, Al Jazeera
[fox7austin.com], [aljazeera.com]
Proxy War and Escalation Risks:
The Guardian, Times of Israel
[theguardian.com], [timesofisrael.com]
