By Sajjad Azhar:
Rather than asking whether the United States will attack Iran, it is more revealing to ask what kind of war it would fight if it did.
The opening phase would be familiar: intense air strikes targeting Iran’s leadership, military command and defence systems. Once Iran’s capacity for conventional retaliation is neutralised, the real battle would begin—not on the ground, but in the digital space.
This would be a war of narratives, fought through algorithms, artificial intelligence and information control. News—true or false—would spread faster than missiles, shaping perceptions, breaking morale and deciding outcomes long before facts are verified.
While Iran has demonstrated its ability to strike deep into Israel and even target US bases in the region, it remains technologically outmatched by the United States. Yet Washington’s ultimate objective may not be military victory alone, but regime change—achieved not through occupation, but through psychological and informational dominance.
By disrupting Iran’s communication networks and controlling digital access, AI-driven systems would flood the public sphere with stories of defections, arrests and leadership collapse. Accuracy would matter less than impact. Supporters of the regime would be disoriented, while opposition voices would appear amplified and unstoppable.
Unlike past conflicts, there would be no need for long-term ground forces or massive propaganda infrastructures. Today, narratives are delivered directly into individual minds through smartphones, powered by data servers thousands of miles away.
Iran is not inexperienced in information warfare, having used similar tactics across the Middle East. However, American technological superiority would make this an uneven contest.
In such a conflict, truth would likely be buried before the first casualty. AI-generated fake videos, manipulated images and viral disinformation would shape reality in real time. By the time facts emerge, public opinion would already be formed.
Strategically, this war would not resemble Iraq or Afghanistan. The United States lacks the appetite—and the economic capacity—for a prolonged conflict. Speed would be essential. The larger objective would be Iran’s energy resources. A friendly regime, lifted sanctions and Iranian oil re-entering global markets could ease pressure on oil prices and help stabilise a fragile global economy. If that fails, instability in the Strait of Hormuz—through which 20 percent of the world’s oil flows—would be enough to shake markets worldwide.
In modern energy politics, fear is often more effective than firepower.
This is why a potential US–Iran war would not target Iran alone. Its consequences would ripple across the global economy, energy markets and political systems.
And when it begins, the first strike will already be in your pocket.
63
