Nournews: In June 2025, an unprecedented military confrontation occurred between Iran and the Zionist regime, quickly dubbed the "Twelve-Day War" in media reports. Although short in duration, this conflict was one of the most significant military encounters in the Middle East in the past decade in terms of tactical depth, geographical scope, and strategic consequences. Understanding its nature requires a lens grounded in contemporary war theory. Three analytical models are particularly useful: Warden's Five Rings Theory, the Shock and Awe Doctrine, and Hybrid Warfare. Each provides insights into this unique conflict.
Warden's Five Rings: A Theory for Structural Paralysis
Colonel John Warden, a U.S. Air Force strategist, introduced a model in the 1990s that viewed the enemy as a living system with five concentric rings: leadership, essential processes, infrastructure, population, and military forces. Unlike classical warfare, where combat begins at the outermost layer (military forces), this model starts from the innermost circle: leadership. This theory was employed during the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
In the twelve-day war, Israel's initial strikes targeted Iranian command centers and infrastructure (including nuclear and military facilities in Isfahan, Karaj, and Damghan), mirroring Warden's approach. However, Iran's response—a combination of missile strikes, resistance network operations, cyberattacks, and psychological warfare—diverged from this model. Warden's theory explains only part of Israel's behavior and is inadequate for analyzing multilayered wars involving non-state actors.
Shock and Awe Doctrine: Intense Fear, but Unsustainable
The "Shock and Awe" concept aims to deliver intense psychological blows to the enemy through rapid, high-impact strikes. It was used by the U.S. during the 2003 Iraq invasion to mentally and organizationally paralyze the opponent at the outset.
Israel's surprise attack and attempt to disrupt Iranian command structures aligned with this doctrine. Yet Iran's measured, phased, and multi-dimensional response showed that this model too failed to capture the full dynamics of the war. Far from being paralyzed, Iran swiftly and smartly counterattacked using asymmetric capabilities. Thus, the Shock and Awe model proved only partially effective.
Hybrid Warfare: The Dominant and Accurate Model
Hybrid warfare is a modern concept in strategic literature that involves the simultaneous use of military, cyber, media, economic, and diplomatic tools to exert multidimensional pressure. This kind of warfare is not based on clear frontlines or conventional weapons but on ambiguity, tactical diversity, and multilayered surprise.
A hybrid actor may carry out limited missile attacks, cyber operations, media campaigns, and use resistance forces across fronts to wear down the adversary from within. Iran's performance in the twelve-day war closely matched this model:
Precision missile strikes of Islamic Republic Guard Corps (IRGC) shifted the psychological balance of the war and showcased targeted, deliberate responses of Iran.
Cyberattacks on Israel's early-warning infrastructure demonstrated Iran's high ability to disrupt systems without deploying personnel.
Resistance network forces applied geographical and political pressure on Israel.
Strategic use of media and global public opinion triggered unrest even within Israeli society.
Notably, Iran avoided full-scale war while imposing high strategic costs on its adversary.
Diplomacy in Hybrid Warfare: A Silent Yet Effective Weapon
An often-overlooked yet vital aspect of hybrid warfare is active diplomacy during conflict. Throughout the twelve-day war, Iran engaged diplomatically with key players such as Iraq, Oman, Qatar, and Russia to manage tensions and warn Israel's potential supporters.
Iran leveraged clear stances of regional and international allies to increase global pressure on Israel and reduce the likelihood of further military actions.
It also utilized media diplomacy to present a legitimate narrative to the UN and international audiences, emphasizing its right to self-defense against initial Israeli aggression.
These actions demonstrated that in hybrid warfare, diplomacy is not a post-war tool, but a weapon employed during conflict. Just like cyber operations and media campaigns, diplomacy becomes part of the active battlefield.
In summary, the twelve-day war marked a conceptual shift in regional warfare. It revealed that in face of classical Western powers (with Israel as a proxy), hybrid tactics can outmatch traditional battle strategies. In such a framework, dominance is no longer determined by the number of tanks or jets but by the strategic coordination of media, regional forces, cyber capabilities, diplomacy, and calculated military actions.
If we are to select one theoretical framework that best explains this war, hybrid warfare undoubtedly provides the most accurate and functional analytical lens. Today, Iran is not merely a military actor but a strategic force with its own 21st-century war doctrine. While Israel's initial attack may have drawn on Warden's model and the Shock and Awe doctrine, Iran's response was unmistakably defined by hybrid warfare—conducted not with tanks, but with soft power, integrated strength, and strategic design.
NOURNEWS