'The Iran war is not a close fight. It's 100:1 in favour of US-Israel'

War coverage would have us believe, US and Israel are almost evenly locked in battle with Iran. Iran is matching – even outsmarting – US through “strategic cleverness”, and “asymmetric warfare”.

US appears impulsive, Iran, smart, defiant, and resilient. But, this, simply, isn’t true.It isn’t even close to an even fight. It’s profoundly lopsided – perhaps 100:1 in favour of US-Israel. Iran’s military/institutional infra is being dismantled fast. Yes, in the era of insta-reels, two or three weeks feel long. But think: a military apparatus, built over nearly five decades, is crumbling, in less than three weeks.

Iran’s air defence is ineffective. US and Israeli aircraft operate with increasing freedom.

Senior leaders are assassinated, suggesting deep intelligence penetration. And yet, experts on TV predict American failure – insisting the war was a mistake; that US may lose. Their argument doesn’t fit with ground reality. But, first, what popularises such narratives? Why does a fair section of global opinion hope for Iranian regime to prevail? Four reasons.

* David vs Goliath instinct. From Wimbledon finals to global conflicts, audiences instinctively cheer for the underdog. War is complex, but sympathy gravitates to the weaker side. We want to believe determination can overcome overwhelming odds – perhaps, because, many of us feel like underdogs in our lives. Supporting the underdog is emotionally satisfying.* Opposition to Trump. His confrontational style, unconventional rhetoric, and polarising policies make him disliked by many.

Because he started the conflict, critics hope he fails. But wars aren’t popularity contests. Outcomes depend on capabilities, strategy, not opinions.* Media incentives. War coverage is more compelling when a conflict is framed as suspenseful, and competitive. A tit-for-tat narrative attracts more eyeballs. So, even limited Iranian actions are amplified, and framed as strategic brilliance, rather than as potential signs of desperation.* Imbalance of visuals. Images shape perception. Videos showing damage in Israel or West Asia trigger emotional reactions. Reporting from inside Iran is limited – fewer journalists, restricted internet, less visible documentation of destruction. Visual imbalance creates an illusion of parity, even if strike-volumes differ dramatically.These emotional responses obscure a simple reality: The Numbers. Consider defence spending alone – Iran’s stands at $23bn; Israel’s $46bn.

US? About $919bn. Nearly 40 times Iran’s spend. Tehran’s backers point to ‘smart’ tactics – regional drone attacks, closing Strait of Hormuz, or ‘mosaic defence’, designed to allow decentralised units to operate if leadership is disrupted. Perhaps, many Indians relate to this ‘jugaad’ type war strategy.

However, it won’t work. These resemble survival tactics, not strategic strength; fragmentation, not coordinated national defence.

These are methods closer to ‘irregular militias’. A decentralised defence may signal resilience, but it also reveals vulnerability, at the top.

Critics also argue US lacks clear objectives. But goals appear straightforward: eliminate Iran’s ability to project power beyond its borders. That includes nuclear capability, regional proxy networks, and missile/drone strike capacity. Iran’s retaliation may, in fact, reinforce international fears about its regime, rather than strengthen its position.

Instead of deterring opposition, such actions risk consolidating it.

What’s framed as ‘strategic defiance’ may, in practice, strengthen adversaries’ resolve.None of this makes war admirable, or justified. War is never pretty, and violence cannot be morally sanitised. Nor is it about choosing sides. But once a war starts, analysis must rely on observable realities, not emotional preference. Yes, costs are real.

Every war produces economic shockwaves. But economic pain does not indicate military success or failure.US-Israel invested heavily in innovation, tech, and military capability. Their advantages were built over decades. Rather than romanticising weakness, experts should ask how such capabilities were developed. It’s clear US and Israel are far ahead. Barring unforeseen change, the outcome doesn’t depend on Iran’s strategy, but on when it runs out of steam.