Iran Adopts ‘Mosaic Defense’ to Sustain Long War

• By Thetripurapost Web Desk, Tehran
• Mar 11, 2026
• 745

The war involving Iran, the United States, and Israel has now entered its twelfth day, with intense hostilities continuing across multiple fronts. On the very first day of the conflict, the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei triggered a series of developments that have reportedly resulted in the deaths of nearly 50 senior Iranian officials in subsequent strikes. Despite these losses, Tehran maintains that it remains capable of sustaining a prolonged conflict.

According to reports by Al Jazeera, Iran has prepared for such contingencies through a carefully designed military strategy that disperses command authority across multiple layers. Instead of relying on a single centralized command structure, Iran has divided its military leadership into seven independent operational units, each with four predetermined successors to ensure continuity in the event of targeted assassinations or communication breakdowns.

On March 1, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Tehran had spent two decades studying U.S. military campaigns, particularly those in Afghanistan and Iraq. Drawing lessons from these conflicts, Iran built a resilient security architecture designed to continue functioning even if its capital or central command structures were attacked.

This framework is known as “Decentralized Mosaic Defense.” The term “mosaic” refers to a pattern composed of many small pieces forming a larger picture. Similarly, Iran’s defense doctrine distributes military authority across numerous smaller and semi-autonomous units rather than concentrating power in a single command center.

The concept is closely associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and was developed under the leadership of former commander Mohammad Ali Jafari between 2007 and 2019.

Within this decentralized structure, various branches of Iran’s military operate as an interconnected network. These include the IRGC, the Basij militia, the regular army known as Artesh, missile forces, naval units, and local command structures. Even if communication with central leadership is severed, regional units retain operational autonomy and can continue resisting enemy forces.

Under this strategy, Iran’s military responsibilities are distributed among different institutions:

• Artesh (Regular Army): Absorbs the initial assault, using armored, mechanized, and infantry units to slow enemy advances and stabilize the front lines.

• Air Defense Units: Employ concealment, deception, and dispersal tactics to limit enemy air superiority.

• IRGC: Leads the second phase of resistance, conducting decentralized operations, ambushes, and supply-line disruptions through guerrilla warfare across urban and mountainous terrain.

• Basij Militia: Organized across Iran’s 31 provinces, with significant autonomy granted to local commanders.

• Naval Forces: Implement anti-access strategies in the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, targeting enemy vessels using mines, fast attack craft, and anti-ship missiles.

• Missile Forces: Operated by the IRGC, responsible for deterrence and long-range strikes against strategic enemy infrastructure.

• Regional Proxy Networks: Allied groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis expand the conflict beyond Iran’s borders, preventing adversaries from concentrating on a single battlefield.

Iran’s adoption of this doctrine stems largely from lessons drawn from the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. In both cases, highly centralized regimes collapsed rapidly after command structures were destroyed. Observing this vulnerability, Iranian strategists concluded that excessive centralization posed a serious risk during modern warfare.

Instead, Iran reorganized its military into smaller, decentralized units capable of surviving leadership losses and maintaining operational continuity. Recognizing that its adversaries possess superior conventional capabilities—particularly in air power, intelligence, and advanced technology—Iran opted for a strategy aimed at prolonging the conflict and exhausting the enemy rather than seeking rapid confrontation.

Iran’s arsenal also supports this strategy. The country produces relatively inexpensive weapons such as the Shahed drone, which can cost only a few thousand dollars. In contrast, adversaries must deploy costly interceptor missiles to neutralize them, significantly increasing the financial burden of sustained warfare.

This doctrine reflects principles similar to the “prolonged war” theory developed by Chinese revolutionary leader Mao Zedong. The concept suggests that a weaker power does not need immediate victory over a stronger opponent; instead, it can gradually weaken the enemy’s resolve, resources, and political support through a drawn-out conflict.

The idea was introduced into Iranian strategic thinking by IRGC chief strategist Hassan Abbasi, while Mohammad Ali Jafari played a key role in integrating it into Iran’s military structure.

Another critical feature of Iran’s system is the “fourth successor” concept, under which multiple successors are designated for nearly every leadership role. If one commander is eliminated, the second, third, or fourth successor can immediately assume control. This approach applies not only to military commanders but also to political leadership.

Following the reported death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, his son Mojtaba Khamenei is said to have assumed leadership responsibilities.

Iranian officials argue that the purpose of this structure is to prevent the collapse of the state apparatus after targeted attacks. A small inner decision-making circle can continue directing operations even if communication networks fail.

Western military doctrine—particularly that of the United States and Israel—often emphasizes rapid strikes aimed at eliminating enemy leadership and command infrastructure. Iran’s “Mosaic Defense” is designed specifically to counter this approach by ensuring that the state’s military and political systems remain functional even after severe losses.

According to Tehran’s strategic philosophy, wars are not determined solely by initial military strength. Endurance, organization, and the ability to sustain long-term resistance can ultimately prove decisive.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi recently reiterated this position, asserting that aerial bombardments have not significantly degraded Iran’s ability to wage war and that Tehran will determine the timing and conditions under which the conflict ultimately concludes.