THE IRAN WAR OPENED with a shock. In minutes, the United States and Israel struck deep into Iran’s command structure, killing nearly fifty senior figures—among them the Supreme Leader and much of the military high command. It was a ruthless display of intelligence, surveillance, and targeting at a level rarely seen in modern warfare. Russian forces only wish they could have achieved even a fraction of this effect in Ukraine in 2022. Had they done so, the war’s trajectory might have unfolded very differently. But this kind of operational success is exceptionally hard to deliver in warfare.
And yet, as Carl von Clausewitz cautioned centuries ago, the outcome of war is not governed by formulaic calculus. No matter how astounding, operational sophistication and technological prowess do not guarantee success. Instead of an immediate collapse, the decapitation of the Iranian regime appears to have produced a series of unpredictable second-order effects. At the very least, it physically eliminated Iran’s few pragmatic leaders who have historically favored restraint. Their demise effectively handed over power to the hardliners of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Moreover, the war appears to have paralyzed Iran’s domestic opposition, whose adherents may despise the regime but—unlike the U.S. and Israel—do not want to see their country break up into ethnic statelets.
Most importantly, the February 28 decapitation strike convinced Iran’s surviving leaders that this is an existential fight—not a limited confrontation like the Twelve-Day War. Today’s ruling Principalists in Iran differ sharply from the cosmopolitan, Western-educated elite of the 1960s and 1970s. They are largely provincial in origin, domestically rooted, and lack the international ties that once offered pathways of exit. They do not hold dual citizenships, do not maintain
foreign residences, and few of them possess the linguistic or social capital to relocate abroad. Simply put, they have no viable exit. For them, defeat is not exile—it is annihilation. Under such conditions, the expectation is not capitulation, but resistance to the very end.
Activating the Iranian Asymmetric Doctrine
Starting in 2001, the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq offered Iranian war planners a prolonged and unusually comprehensive vantage point from which to study the American way of war in their immediate neighborhood. For over two decades, the Iranians analyzed these methods, learned from them, and internalized their logic into their own asymmetric warfare doctrine. And now, having survived the February 28 decapitation attack, the Iranian regime has put that doctrine into operation. Iran’s asymmetric doctrine channels the state’s military, civilian, economic, and informational assets into a multi-domain, protracted insurgency campaign designed to inflict maximum pain on its enemies. In doing so, it rests on what is perhaps the Islamic Republic’s greatest asset: its asymmetric patience—i.e., its capacity to endure more physical and emotional torment than its Western opponents and their allies.
The Iranians refined their asymmetric patience skills during what they refer to as the “War of Holy Defense” (1980-1988), one of the 20th century’s longest conflicts and the deadliest conventional war ever fought in the developing world. The then-newly formed Islamic Republic suffered over 500,000 casualties—many of those due to exposure to chemical warfare—but managed to bring Saddam Hussein’s Western-backed Iraq into a standstill and force it into a truce. To do so, they even resorted to so-called “human wave assaults”, large masses of mostly unarmed youth who swarmed enemy positions and overwhelmed them by the sheer power of their number. That was largely how the Basij, the Iranian regime’s paramilitary street gangs that continue to operate in modern-day Iran, were initially formed.
Iran’s “Economy of Resistance”
On March 28, the Telegram channel belonging to the Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei issued an infographic titled “The Path to Defeating the Enemy in the Economic War”. The infographic reflects the Islamic Republic’s concept of “economy of resistance”, which was first developed in 2014 by Mojtaba Khamenei’s father, the late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The central idea behind this concept is restructuring the Iranian economy, not simply to reduce its susceptibility to Western-imposed sanctions, but to allow it to stabilize and even develop. The goal of the economy of resistance is to prevent the destruction of the Islamic Republic and the Westernization of Iranian society. Through the economy of resistance doctrine, and with crucial help by China and Russia, Iran has largely managed to insulate its economy from the global economic system that is now reeling under Iran’s own asymmetric attacks. Read more of this post
US indicts members of Russian spy cell for plotting assassinations on US, European soil
September 21, 2026 2 Comments
Three of the accused are believed to be senior members of the RIS network. They are: Yuri Khrameev, 63; his biological son, Kirill Khrameev, 27; and Oemis Romagoza Durruthy, 35. The elder Khrameev is a retired intelligence officer who claims to have reached the rank of colonel and has stated at least once that he worked alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin in the past. The younger Khrameev is believed to hold a mid-level rank in Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB). The indictment describes Durruthy as a well-known member of the Cuban expatriate community in Russia, who has operated internationally as a member of the RIS network.
The fourth suspect is named as Yaidel Delgado Suarez (known as “the Viking”), who, like Durruthy, is a Cuban expatriate living in Russia. The remaining suspect is named as Angel Eduardo Castro, a 22-year-old Venezuelan. Notably all five suspects remain at large and are believed to reside in Russia. The Khrameevs and Durruthy are Russian citizens. Durruthy is also a Cuban national, as is Suarez—the latter’s status described in the indictment as that of “a Cuban national living in Russia”. Castro is referred to as a “Venezuelan national living in Russia”. It is therefore not known whether Suarez and Castro also hold Russian citizenship—though they most likely do.
According to the indictment, in the summer of 2026 Suarez and Castro recruited a Venezuelan citizen who was living in the New York area. The unnamed Venezuelan, who is referred to in the indictment as “Resident 1”, agreed to engage in reconnaissance activity in the vicinity of a house where the RIS network believed an exiled Russian dissident resided. In exchange for his services, “Resident 1” was promised between $1,000 and $1,500. The recruit was also offered $40,000 in exchange for assassinating the RIS network’s target, but appears to have declined the offer. Read more of this post
Filed under Expert news and commentary on intelligence, espionage, spies and spying Tagged with Angel Eduardo Castro, assassinations, FSB, GRU Unit 29155, Kirill Khrameev, Lithuania, News, Oemis Romagoza Durruthy, Russia, sabotage, United States, Yaidel Delgado Suarez, Yuri Khrameev