Air superiority wins battles. Control of oil routes can reshape wars.
Closure of the Strait of Hormuz and Resilient Iranian Leadership Raise Questions About Who Now Holds the Initiative.
In the opening days of the conflict with Iran, the advantage clearly belonged to Washington and Jerusalem. A surprise Israeli strike eliminated Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and U.S. and Israeli aircraft struck thousands of targets with little resistance. Tehran’s early missile barrages were largely intercepted. Casualties inside Israel remained limited compared with previous flare-ups.
Three weeks later, the picture looks more complicated.
Iran’s decision to close the Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly 20 percent of global oil supplies transit — has injected a new and destabilizing variable into the war. Energy prices have surged. Shipping traffic has slowed. Financial markets have grown jittery. What began as a largely conventional air campaign has evolved into an economic confrontation with global consequences.
Senior Iranian officials now project defiance. Mohsen Rezaee of the Revolutionary Guards declared that “the end of the war is in our hands,” calling for a U.S. withdrawal from the Gulf. Such rhetoric would have seemed improbable in the first days of bombardment, when Iran’s command structure appeared shaken.
The United States and Israel retain overwhelming conventional superiority. Daily strikes continue. Military infrastructure inside Iran has been degraded. Some analysts, such as Danny Orbach of the Hebrew University, argue that setting the agenda — choosing targets, dictating tempo — still constitutes holding the initiative. By that definition, Washington remains in control.
Others are less convinced.
Peter Neumann of King’s College London argues that Tehran has successfully shifted the battlefield from airspace to economics. Closing Hormuz was not simply retaliation; it was leverage. Protecting hundreds of commercial vessels in narrow waters would demand enormous resources and still offer no guarantee of safety. A single mine or missile could disrupt global supply chains.
President Donald Trump now faces mounting domestic pressure as fuel prices rise. Calls for allied navies to assist in reopening the strait have so far met hesitation. Escalatory options — from seizing Iran’s Kharg Island to striking oil facilities outright — carry their own risks, including prolonged instability.
Meanwhile, regime change in Tehran appears distant. Despite the killing of Khamenei, the leadership transition to Mojtaba Khamenei has not triggered mass uprisings. Analysts note that the security apparatus remains intact and dissent tightly suppressed.
Beyond Iran itself, the regional chessboard is fluid. Hezbollah has sustained rocket fire from Lebanon, prompting heavy Israeli retaliation and large-scale displacement. Iraqi militias and Yemen’s Houthis have been more restrained, at least for now. Each actor calculates survival differently.
Wars often hinge not only on battlefield metrics but on endurance and perception. Tactical dominance does not automatically translate into strategic victory. If Iran can sustain economic pressure while absorbing military blows, the calculus shifts.
The early momentum belonged to the U.S. and Israel. Whether it still does may depend less on airpower than on who can better withstand the consequences of escalation — and who ultimately decides that the costs have become too high.
