1. Executive Summary

The initiation of Operation Epic Fury by the United States and Israel on February 28, 2026, has fundamentally altered the strategic equilibrium of the Middle East and triggered a profound restructuring of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s internal security and military apparatus.¹ This comprehensive report provides an exhaustive comparative analysis of Iran’s dual military institutions—the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the regular armed forces (Artesh)—establishing a pre-conflict baseline (2023–2024) and rigorously evaluating their current operational status and shifting power dynamics as of April 2026.

The analysis yields the following primary strategic conclusions regarding the state of the Iranian armed forces and the sustainability of the ongoing conflict:

First, the conflict has precipitated an unprecedented inversion of the military power balance within Iran. Prior to the escalation cycle of 2024–2025, the IRGC exercised unchallenged dominance over Iran’s strategic posture, controlling the nation’s ballistic missile arsenal, advanced drone programs, and vast internal security apparatus, while the Artesh was relegated to conventional, frequently underfunded territorial defense operations.⁴ However, following systemic decapitation strikes and the severe degradation of the IRGC’s aerospace assets during the 12-day war in June 2025 and the massive 2026 air campaign, the Artesh has experienced a rapid ascendancy in strategic influence. This influence has been formally consolidated through the newly empowered National Defense Council.⁷

Second, the offensive capabilities of the IRGC have suffered severe, structural degradation. The U.S.-Israeli air campaign has rendered a majority of Iran’s medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) stockpiles combat-ineffective.⁸ Approximately 50 percent of Iranian missile launchers are assessed as either destroyed or buried under rubble, and the launch rate directed against Israel has plummeted by roughly 90 percent since the onset of the war.⁸ Furthermore, the targeted assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the subsequent, highly controversial installation of his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has exacerbated factional fissures within the IRGC, significantly diminishing its regime-preservation cohesion.³

Third, the conflict is increasingly defined by the economics of attrition and the concept of “Command of the Reload.” While Iran’s high-end, strategic conventional capabilities are deeply degraded, Tehran has successfully pivoted to a strategy of “precise mass”.¹¹ By utilizing vast quantities of low-cost loitering munitions and decoy systems, the Iranian military has effectively forced the coalition into a coupling trap, exhausting highly expensive, slow-to-produce interceptor stockpiles.¹¹ The U.S. and Israeli forces expended over 11,000 advanced munitions in the opening 16 days of the conflict alone, creating acute defense industrial base bottlenecks for critical systems such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Patriot, and Arrow 3 interceptors.¹¹

Fourth, to offset its conventional military defeats and subsidize its wartime operations, Iran has operationalized a highly structured, selective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. By levying a transit toll on commercial shipping through IRGC-linked brokerages—strictly denominated in Chinese yuan or cryptocurrency—Tehran is executing a sophisticated geoeconomic strategy designed to fracture global energy markets, bypass Western financial sanctions infrastructure, and internationalize the costs of the conflict.¹²

Finally, regarding conflict sustainability, the assessment indicates a profound strategic asymmetry. The United States possesses overwhelming conventional and technological superiority but faces severe limitations regarding interceptor replenishment and the strategic “second-theatre tax” on its Indo-Pacific and European deterrence postures.¹¹ Conversely, Iran lacks the capacity to achieve a conventional military victory but possesses the asymmetrical endurance and decentralized structure to sustain a protracted, low-intensity war of attrition. Ultimately, the paramount risk to the Iranian state is no longer external military invasion, but rather internal institutional collapse—specifically, the growing potential for the Artesh to intervene domestically, prioritizing the preservation of the Iranian nation-state over the survival of the clerical regime.⁷

2. Strategic Context and the Genesis of the Dual Military Structure

To comprehend the magnitude of the structural shifts occurring within the Iranian military apparatus in 2026, it is imperative to examine the historical and doctrinal origins of its unique “two-headed” security architecture.¹⁵ The national security framework of the Islamic Republic of Iran was not designed for optimal battlefield efficiency; rather, it was deliberately engineered to be complex, fragmented, and inherently competitive, prioritizing coup-proofing and regime survival above all other considerations.⁴

2.1. The Legacy of the 1979 Revolution

Emerging from the crucible of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the state’s founder, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, harbored profound and enduring suspicions toward the Imperial Iranian Army.⁵ The army was a conventionally trained, well-equipped force with deep historical ties to the deposed Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and operated largely on Western military doctrines.⁵ Recognizing that the regular military possessed the organizational capacity to overthrow the nascent theocracy, the revolutionary leadership executed brutal purges of the officer corps in the immediate aftermath of the monarchy’s collapse.⁵

However, Khomeini recognized that dismantling the army entirely would leave the country defenseless—a fear validated by the subsequent Iraqi invasion in 1980.⁵ Consequently, Khomeini preserved the regular army, rebranding it as the Islamic Republic of Iran Army (Artesh), but simultaneously established the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), or Sepah-e Pasdaran-e Enqelab-e Eslami, as a parallel, ideologically pure praetorian guard.⁵

2.2. Doctrinal Bifurcation and Institutional Rivalry

For over four decades, this dual-military structure has defined Iranian security policy. The civilian leadership fostered a state of permanent, managed rivalry between the two forces, ensuring that neither could consolidate sufficient power to threaten the clerical establishment.⁵ This rivalry was structurally enforced through constitutional mandates, uneven resource allocation, and differing levels of subjective civilian control.⁵

The IRGC was granted vast economic empires, operating massive construction, engineering, and telecommunications conglomerates that accounted for a substantial portion of the Iranian Gross Domestic Product.⁵ This financial autonomy allowed the IRGC to bypass traditional state budgeting mechanisms, independently funding advanced weapons research, proxy support networks, and internal security operations. Conversely, the Artesh was frequently starved of funding and prestige, treated as a secondary priority by the Supreme Leader, and subjected to highly restrictive control mechanisms.⁵

3. Pre-Conflict Organizational Baseline (2023–2024)

Prior to the escalation cycle that began in 2024, the Iranian armed forces operated under a strict division of labor, dictated by their ideological imperatives and distinct threat perceptions.⁴ Estimates from the Global Firepower index and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) indicated that Iran maintained one of the largest standing armed forces in the Middle East, with over 600,000 active-duty personnel distributed across its various branches.¹⁹

3.1. The Artesh: Conventional Territorial Defense

The Artesh was the larger of the two forces in terms of raw manpower, boasting approximately 350,000 active-duty troops.¹⁹ However, this numerical superiority did not equate to strategic influence. The Artesh’s constitutional mandate was strictly limited to the defense of Iran’s borders, territorial integrity, and political independence against conventional foreign invasion.⁶

Doctrinally, the Artesh was organized for defense-in-depth, tasked with absorbing external shocks rather than projecting power abroad.¹⁵ Its force posture was heavily conventional. The Iranian Air Force (IRIAF), a branch of the Artesh, was widely considered the weakest link in Iran’s conventional military matrix.¹⁹ It operated roughly 250 combat-capable aircraft, the vast majority of which were pre-1979 U.S. airframes (such as F-14 Tomcats and F-4 Phantoms) or aging Soviet-era imports.¹⁹ The Artesh Navy maintained a traditional blue-water aspiration, operating primarily in the Gulf of Oman and the Caspian Sea, while the Artesh Ground Forces were deployed to secure the nation’s porous land borders.¹⁹

Culturally and ideologically, the Artesh maintained a more secular, professional, and nationalistic ethos compared to the IRGC.²⁰ Its officer corps viewed their primary loyalty as directed toward the ancient nation-state of Iran, rather than the specific clerical architecture of the post-1979 Islamic Republic.⁷ Because of this inherent nationalism, the Supreme Leader deliberately marginalized the Artesh from domestic security operations, ensuring it possessed no formal role in suppressing internal dissent or maintaining public order.⁷

3.2. The IRGC: Asymmetric Dominance and Regime Preservation

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (comprising approximately 190,000 personnel) was the undisputed center of gravity for Iranian military power, deterrence, and regime survival.¹⁷ Unlike the Artesh, the IRGC’s mandate was expressly political and ideological: to defend the revolution, enforce clerical rule, and expand Iranian influence regionally.⁶

To execute this mandate, the IRGC monopolized Iran’s most critical, lethal, and technologically advanced capabilities:

• Aerospace Force (IRGC-AF): This branch exercised total control over Iran’s massive, diverse arsenal of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).⁴ Prior to the 2026 conflict, Iran possessed the largest missile inventory in the Middle East, estimated by Israeli and independent intelligence at 2,500 to 6,000 operational ballistic missiles.¹⁹ The IRGC-AF was the primary instrument of Iranian deterrence and forward strike capability, operating from deep, hardened underground complexes.¹⁵
• Quds Force: Responsible for extraterritorial operations and unconventional warfare, the Quds Force managed the so-called “Axis of Resistance”—a vast network of proxy militias across Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthis), Iraq, Syria, and the Palestinian territories.³ This network provided Iran with strategic depth and plausible deniability.
• Navy (IRGCN): Operating primarily in the confined, strategically vital waters of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, the IRGCN utilized asymmetric swarming tactics, fast attack craft, and extensive naval mine warfare, establishing a distinct operational paradigm from the Artesh Navy.¹⁷
• Internal Coercion: The IRGC exercised total, uncontested control over domestic security. Through its Intelligence Organization and its command of the Basij paramilitary forces, the IRGC served as the ultimate guarantor of regime survival against recurring waves of domestic uprisings and civil unrest.⁶

The following table summarizes the comparative baseline of the Iranian Armed Forces prior to the onset of high-intensity conflict.

4. The Escalation Pathway and Operation Rising Lion (2024–2025)

The structural dominance of the IRGC began to erode significantly during a prolonged period of escalation with Israel and the United States, culminating in a critical, albeit contained, confrontation in mid-2025.³ Recognizing the growing threat posed by Iran’s advancing nuclear enrichment and its proliferation of advanced precision-guided munitions to regional proxies, Israeli strategy transitioned from containing Iranian proxies to executing direct strikes against Iranian sovereign territory and critical infrastructure.²³

In June 2025, this strategy materialized in the 12-day war, subsequently referred to by regional analysts as Operation “Rising Lion” (June 13–24, 2025).²³ During this conflict, Israeli and U.S. forces systematically degraded the IRGC’s forward-deployed assets. The campaign successfully neutralized Hezbollah’s highly touted second-strike capability in Lebanon and decimated integrated air defense systems in Syria.³ Crucially, the destruction of these regional air defense nodes opened a direct flight path for coalition aircraft, establishing an environment of absolute aerial freedom of operation in Iranian skies.²³

The immediate aftermath of Operation Rising Lion exposed severe vulnerabilities in the IRGC’s defensive planning. The failure to protect its regional proxies or deter direct strikes on its nuclear and military infrastructure resulted in profound institutional fatigue, the loss of highly experienced senior commanders, and deepening factionalism within the Guard Corps.⁷ To address the strategic vacuum created by the IRGC’s perceived failures, the Iranian civilian leadership established the National Defense Council.⁷ This body deliberately elevated senior Artesh commanders into strategic decision-making roles, marking the first significant dilution of the IRGC’s monopoly on national security policy in decades.⁷

5. Operation Epic Fury: The 2026 U.S.-Israeli Air Campaign

The creeping degradation of 2025 set the stage for a catastrophic escalation in early 2026. Against a backdrop of severe domestic unrest in Iran, collapsing economic conditions, and stalled diplomatic negotiations in Muscat, Oman, the United States and Israel launched a massive, coordinated military offensive against the Islamic Republic.³

5.1. The Initial Assault and Leadership Decapitation

On the morning of February 28, 2026, the U.S. and Israel initiated Operation Epic Fury.¹ The opening salvos were characterized by overwhelming speed and mass, comprising nearly 900 joint strikes within the first 12 hours of the campaign.² The initial assault wave utilized Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles launched from U.S. naval assets in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, supported by advanced fifth-generation fighter aircraft.¹¹

The targeting matrix for Operation Epic Fury signaled a decisive shift in coalition strategy. Rather than merely engaging deployed forces, the strikes focused on high-intensity decapitation and the systematic destruction of Iran’s defense industrial base.²⁷ Key governance centers in Tehran were struck precisely at 09:40 Iran Standard Time—the start of the Iranian working week—maximizing the disruption of administrative and ministerial command structures.²⁷

Most significantly, the initial wave of airstrikes successfully assassinated Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, alongside several other senior military and political officials.¹ Khamenei had ruled for 37 years, meticulously managing the complex rivalries within the security state.⁷ His abrupt removal stripped the regime of its central stabilizing node, plunging the political and military establishment into acute disarray.⁷

5.2. Degradation of IRGC Aerospace and Missile Infrastructure

The primary military objective of Operation Epic Fury was the eradication of the IRGC’s strategic strike capabilities.² The coalition systematically targeted the IRGC Aerospace Force’s underground missile bases, reinforced silos, and extensive tunnel networks.⁸

By April 2026, the cumulative impact of these strikes had profoundly altered the regional threat landscape. U.S. intelligence assessments indicate that approximately 50 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers have been destroyed, buried under collapsed tunnel entrances, or rendered combat-ineffective due to lack of access.⁸ The combined force targeted at least five major underground facilities; geospatial analysis of 107 known Iranian tunnel entrances revealed that 77 percent had sustained direct strikes by late March.⁸

The operational attrition of the IRGC-AF is most evident in its diminished capacity to project power against highly defended targets. The rate of medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) fire directed at Israel has decreased by approximately 90 percent since the war’s initial days.⁸ Early salvos, which involved massive, coordinated barrages designed to overwhelm Israeli air defenses, have been reduced to sporadic single or double missile launches.⁸ Furthermore, due to the sustained destruction of launch sites in western Iran, the IRGC has been forced to relocate its surviving missile assets to the country’s central interior.³⁰ This geographic retreat imposes severe tactical limitations, as many of Iran’s remaining missiles lack the necessary range to reach Israeli territory from central launch points.³⁰

The following table outlines the assessed status of key Iranian military infrastructure as of April 2026, demonstrating the severe degradation of the IRGC’s primary assets.

6. The Inversion of Power: Artesh Ascendancy and the Crisis of Regime Cohesion

The conspicuous and highly visible operational failures of the IRGC have precipitated a profound inversion of the Iranian security landscape.²⁵ As the IRGC grapples with massive infrastructure losses, debilitating command friction, and reports of some ballistic missile units refusing deployment orders out of fear of immediate coalition counter-strikes, the Artesh has capitalized on the strategic vacuum.⁷

6.1. The Strategic Window for the Regular Armed Forces

The weakening of the IRGC has opened a historic strategic window for the Artesh.²⁵ By virtue of its constitutional mandate to defend the nation’s territorial integrity against conventional threats, the Artesh is inherently better positioned to manage the state’s survival amidst a massive, conventional military onslaught than the ideologically focused IRGC.⁷

This shift is not merely theoretical; it is actively altering the command structure. The influence of the Artesh has expanded significantly within strategic deliberations, reinforced by its growing prominence on the Supreme National Security Council and its dominant role within the National Defense Council.⁷ The U.S. strategy of applying calibrated, targeted military pressure is explicitly designed to exploit these elite fissures.⁷ By directing the brunt of the kinetic strikes against the IRGC’s coercive apparatus, Washington hopes to empower more cooperative or nationally focused factions within the Artesh.⁷ President Trump has publicly issued ultimatums offering immunity to elements of the regular military that lay down their arms, attempting to catalyze mass defections.⁷

While Western media reports indicate no mass, organized defections have occurred yet, anti-regime outlets and internal intelligence sources point to acute supply shortages and deepening, bitter friction between the Artesh and the IRGC.¹⁸ As the IRGC’s resources are depleted fighting a multi-front external war, its control over internal security is degrading.⁷ Analysts assess a high probability that, should domestic unrest threaten to collapse the state entirely, the Artesh may be compelled to intervene. In such a scenario, the Artesh is highly likely to prioritize the preservation of the Iranian nation-state over loyalty to the clerical regime, heightening the risk of a violent intra-security force conflict that echoes the dynamics of the 1979 revolution.⁷

6.2. The Succession of Mojtaba Khamenei and Theological Rupture

The institutional crisis within the military is exponentially compounded by a severe crisis of political and theological legitimacy. Following the assassination of Ali Khamenei, the 88-member Assembly of Experts convened an emergency session on March 8, 2026.⁷ Driven by wartime expediency and a desperate need to prevent a paralyzing power vacuum, the Assembly bypassed constitutional protocols—which mandate a three-man interim leadership council comprising the president, chief justice, and a Guardian Council cleric—and hastily installed Khamenei’s 56-year-old son, Mojtaba Khamenei, as the third Supreme Leader.⁷

This succession represents a catastrophic ideological rupture for the Islamic Republic. The regime’s foundational legitimacy was predicated on the violent repudiation of monarchical, dynastic rule.⁷ In the Sufi and mystical traditions that shaped Iran’s political theology, legitimate authority must pass through a silsila—a chain of spiritual succession where authority is earned through merit, religious scholarship, and consensus, never through bloodline.¹⁰ By installing a son in his father’s seat, the regime broke this vital chain.¹⁰

Mojtaba Khamenei lacks formal religious credentials, possesses a weak stature as a politician, and inherits none of his father’s accumulated, carefully curated authority.⁷ Prior to his ascension, he operated largely in the shadows as his father’s trusted aide and gatekeeper.⁷ Since becoming Supreme Leader, he has remained entirely hidden from public view, communicating only through written statements read by proxies, fueling intense speculation regarding his health following the airstrikes.³² His authority relies entirely on fragile, wartime factional deals with surviving elements of the IRGC who view him as a necessary placeholder.⁷ Consequently, the regime is rapidly losing coherence, stripping the IRGC of the ideological zeal required to sustain high-casualty operations.

7. The Economics of Attrition: “Command of the Reload” and Interceptor Asymmetry

By April 2026, the nature of the conflict has evolved. It is no longer defined by the high-intensity decapitation strikes of the opening days, but rather by a grueling, asymmetric war of attrition.¹¹ In this phase of the conflict, the decisive variable is not battlefield dominance, but “Command of the Reload”—the industrial capacity of either side to replenish critical munitions and sustain its defensive economy under severe stress.¹¹

7.1. The Coupling Trap and Cost-Exchange Asymmetry

The United States and its regional allies possess absolute technological superiority, but they have been drawn into a highly unfavorable cost-exchange paradigm engineered by Iran. Acknowledging that its high-end ballistic missiles cannot reliably penetrate intact coalition air defenses, Tehran has pivoted to a strategy of “precise mass”.¹¹ This strategy utilizes overwhelming volumes of low-cost, long-range drones—primarily the Shahed-136—and inexpensive decoys to saturate airspace, forcing the coalition to expend its most sophisticated and expensive interceptors.¹¹

The financial and material burden of this interception strategy is staggering. In the first 16 days of Operation Epic Fury, coalition forces fired an unprecedented 11,294 munitions.¹¹ Over 5,000 of these were expended in the first 96 hours alone, making it the most intensive opening air campaign in modern history, dwarfing operations like the 2011 intervention in Libya.¹¹ The coalition has spent roughly $19 billion on advanced missile interceptors, compared to a mere $25 million for gun-based, close-in weapon systems (C-RAM).¹¹

The asymmetry is mathematically unsustainable for the West. A single Iranian Shahed-136 drone costs approximately $20,000 to manufacture.¹¹ To defeat these massed drone swarms, the U.S. and Israel are frequently forced to launch Patriot interceptors (costing approximately $4 million each), Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors (costing $12 million to $15 million each), and Arrow 3 exo-atmospheric interceptors (costing roughly $640,000 each).¹¹ By turning cheap offensive mass into a costly defensive burden, Iran executes a “cheap defeat” strategy that bleeds coalition resources at an alarming rate.¹¹

7.2. Radar Attrition and Tactical Efficiency Degradation

Compounding the interceptor cost asymmetry, Iran has demonstrated a concerning proficiency in targeting the specific sensory nodes required to guide Western interceptors. Iranian strikes have successfully hit at least 12 U.S. and allied radar systems and satellite communication terminals across the region, resulting in over $3.1 billion in damages.¹¹

Key losses include:

• AN/TPY-2 Radars: Four of these highly advanced radars, which form the backbone of the THAAD missile defense system, were struck at locations including the UAE, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.¹¹ Valued at over $1 billion each, the destruction of these sensors creates a staggering 30,000-to-1 cost-exchange ratio when disabled by a $30,000 drone.¹¹
• AN/FPS-132 Early Warning Radar: A massive, $1.1 billion early warning installation at Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar was heavily damaged, degrading long-range detection capabilities across the Gulf.¹¹
• Saab Giraffe 1X Systems: Essential for local, short-range defense (C-RAM), multiple units were destroyed, notably at the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad.¹¹

The destruction of these radars severely degrades the efficiency of coalition defensive networks. With impaired early warning and diminished targeting resolution, the U.S. and Israel are occasionally forced to launch 10 or 11 interceptors to defeat a single incoming missile, rapidly accelerating the depletion of critical stockpiles.¹¹

7.3. Munitions Depletion and Industrial Bottlenecks

The rate of expenditure has exposed severe, structural vulnerabilities within the Western defense industrial base. The U.S. is currently exhausting its supply of ground-attack missiles (ATACMS and PrSM) and THAAD interceptors at an alarming pace.¹¹ In Israel, defense sources indicate that the stockpile of Arrow 3 interceptors—vital for exo-atmospheric defense against Iranian MRBMs—was projected to be completely expended by the end of March 2026.¹¹

Replenishment is obstructed by profound industrial and supply chain bottlenecks.¹¹ Replacing the munitions fired in just the first 96 hours of the war requires over 600 tons of Ammonium Perchlorate (representing 6.7 percent of the entire annual production capacity of the single domestic source in the United States).¹¹ Furthermore, the production of offensive weapons, such as the Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile, is glacially slow. The U.S. Navy launched over 500 Tomahawks in the opening salvos; given the current minimum sustainment production rate of 90 missiles per year, and a 24-month build time per missile due to complex solid rocket motor sourcing, it will take up to five years simply to replace the inventory expended in the war’s first week.¹¹

Despite this critical shortfall, political and bureaucratic inertia has delayed the necessary industrial mobilization. As of mid-March 2026, the sole American factory responsible for high explosives—the Holston Army Ammunition Plant in Tennessee—had not yet received formal orders from the Department of Defense to surge production.¹¹

8. Geoeconomic Warfare: The Strait of Hormuz Blockade

Recognizing its conventional military inferiority and the degradation of its strategic missile forces, Iran has aggressively weaponized its geographic control over the Strait of Hormuz.¹² By transforming this vital maritime chokepoint into an instrument of geoeconomic extortion, Tehran has succeeded in internationalizing the conflict, imposing massive costs on the global economy in an effort to force a diplomatic cessation of coalition airstrikes.³

8.1. The Institutionalization of the Toll System

The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most critical energy jugular; prior to the conflict, approximately 20 million barrels of crude oil and one-fifth of the global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade transited the narrow waterway daily.¹² On March 2, 2026, the IRGC Navy formally declared the Strait closed to standard commercial traffic.³⁶ Subsequently, on March 30, the Iranian parliament’s National Security Committee passed the “Strait of Hormuz Management Plan,” asserting sovereign control over the international waterway and implementing a formal, heavily regulated toll system.¹³

This toll system represents a highly sophisticated mechanism for sanctions evasion and wartime revenue generation. The architecture operates through the following sequence:

1. Mandatory Data Submission: Ship operators seeking passage must contact specific brokerage firms linked directly to the IRGC.¹³ Operators must submit highly sensitive documentation, including the vessel’s complete ownership structure, cargo manifests, crew lists, destination ports, and live Automatic Identification System (AIS) data.¹³
2. IRGC Security Screening: The submitted data is forwarded to the Hormozgan Province Command of the IRGC Navy.¹³ This military command center verifies that the vessel, its owners, and its cargo possess no connections to nations Iran considers hostile—primarily Israel and the United States.¹³
3. Tiered Tariff Negotiation: Once security clearance is granted, fee negotiations commence based on a five-tier classification system.¹³ Iran categorizes flag states based on their political utility and alignment; vessels from “friendly” nations (such as China, Russia, India, and Pakistan) receive more favorable passage terms.¹³ The foundational toll rate is set at approximately $1 USD per barrel of cargo.¹³ For a standard Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC) carrying 2 million barrels, the transit fee equates to a staggering $2 million per passage.¹³
4. Non-Dollar Settlement: Crucially, the IRGC strictly prohibits payment in U.S. dollars. Transiting vessels must settle the toll utilizing Chinese yuan (RMB) or cryptocurrency stablecoins pegged to fiat assets.¹³ Upon confirmation of payment, the IRGC issues a permit code and provides an armed escort through an approved navigation corridor near Larak Island.¹³

8.2. Circumventing Global Financial Infrastructure

The enforcement of yuan and cryptocurrency payments represents a structural threat to Western financial hegemony. To facilitate these massive, continuous transactions without triggering U.S. sanctions, Iran relies on China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS), a clearing network launched by the People’s Bank of China to process cross-border renminbi transactions outside the SWIFT messaging network.³⁵

Financial analysis of CIPS data reveals the staggering scale of this shadow economy. Historically, monthly averages for daily CIPS transaction volumes hovered between $85 billion and $105 billion.³⁵ However, following the onset of the war and the implementation of the Hormuz toll, daily observations surged dramatically. By April 1, 2026, CIPS reported that the daily average transaction volume in March reached $134 billion (920.45 billion yuan).³⁵ While this spike includes broader global trade, it strongly correlates with the forced shift to non-dollar energy settlements necessitated by the Iranian blockade, underscoring Tehran’s ability to seamlessly integrate its illicit wartime financing into alternative global structures.³⁵

8.3. Global Macroeconomic Ramifications

The Iranian blockade has triggered profound macroeconomic volatility, echoing the severe disruptions of the 1970s energy crises.⁴⁰ Following the closure of the Strait, global oil prices surged past $120 per barrel, representing a severe structural shock delivered at a moment of preexisting geoeconomic fragility.¹² The oil production of major Gulf states—including Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE—collectively plummeted by at least 10 million barrels per day by mid-March, as exports were left stranded.⁴⁰

The crisis extends beyond crude oil. QatarEnergy was forced to declare force majeure on all LNG exports, and the war threatens to permanently delay Doha’s massive North Field East expansion project (designed to add 33 million tonnes per annum of capacity), fundamentally altering global energy supply projections through the end of the decade.⁴⁰ The resulting “war premium” on shipping and insurance has severely impacted global supply chains, generating acute shortages of industrial inputs, such as fertilizers and helium, and forcing Western central banks to reconsider planned interest rate reductions amid renewed inflationary pressures.⁴²

9. The “Axis of Evasion”: Russian and Chinese Strategic Anchoring

While U.S. airstrikes meticulously dismantle Iran’s domestic defense industrial base, Tehran’s ability to sustain operations relies heavily on an intricate “Axis of Evasion” engineered by China and Russia.⁴⁵ Neither Beijing nor Moscow desires direct military confrontation with the United States in the Middle East; however, they recognize immense strategic value in utilizing Iran to drain American military resources, political capital, and munitions stockpiles.⁴⁵ Consequently, they have transitioned from standard diplomatic partners to vital “technological anchors” for the Islamic Republic.⁴⁶

9.1. Supply Chain Circumvention and Technology Transfers

China operates as the primary economic lifeline for the Iranian state. Prior to the war, China was importing approximately 1.4 million barrels of discounted Iranian crude per day, providing the regime with billions in untraceable revenue.³⁹ During the conflict, Chinese entities continue to facilitate the transfer of sophisticated, dual-use technology essential for Iran to rebuild its shattered drone and missile arrays.⁴⁵

Iran systematically bypasses Western export controls by utilizing complex networks of shell companies and high-diversion risk addresses based in Hong Kong, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.⁴⁷ These networks procure vast quantities of specialized electronic components, guidance systems, and microchips required for UAV manufacturing.⁴⁷ Furthermore, as coalition strikes destroy domestic chemical processing facilities, Iran has rapidly established new, covert supply chains originating in China to replenish critical stocks of solid rocket fuel, ensuring that surviving missile forces remain operational.²³

9.2. Russian Intelligence and Asymmetric Support

Russia’s involvement centers on intelligence sharing and operational synergy. Having relied heavily on Iranian-supplied Shahed drones to prosecute its own war in Ukraine since 2022, Moscow is deeply integrated into Iran’s military-industrial complex.⁴⁸

As the U.S. and Israel degrade Iran’s organic Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, Russia has stepped in to provide critical targeting data. Western intelligence and Ukrainian sources confirm that Russia has provided Iran with high-resolution satellite imagery of vital U.S. and allied installations.³⁸ This intelligence sharing included detailed imagery of the U.S.-UK base in Diego Garcia, the Incirlik Airbase in Turkey, Al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar, and the Shaybah oil field in Saudi Arabia.³⁸ By supplying this targeting data, Russia directly enables the highly precise Iranian drone strikes that have successfully destroyed multi-billion-dollar coalition radar systems.¹¹

10. Conflict Sustainability Forecast and Strategic Prognosis

As the conflict progresses through April 2026, the question of sustainability dominates strategic planning in Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran. Evaluating this sustainability requires abandoning the outdated assumption that overwhelming conventional battlefield dominance automatically equates to victory. Escalation, endurance, and ultimate resolution now hinge entirely on industrial capacity, institutional resilience, and geoeconomic leverage.²⁷

10.1. Coalition Constraints and the “Second-Theatre Tax”

For the United States and Israel, prosecuting the conflict at its current intensity is mechanically and strategically unsustainable. The military-industrial reality is absolute: Washington cannot endlessly expend $15 million THAAD interceptors to defeat $20,000 Shahed drones without eventually exhausting its reserves and bankrupting its defense posture.¹¹

The vulnerability of the U.S. defense industrial base is glaring. Severe supply chain bottlenecks for critical minerals (such as Gallium, Neodymium, and Tungsten—largely controlled by China) and highly specialized chemical propellants prevent any rapid surge in munitions production.¹¹ Consequently, the Middle East conflict is imposing a devastating “second-theatre tax” on U.S. global hegemony.¹¹ Every Tomahawk missile launched at an Iranian bunker, and every Patriot battery deployed to shield a Saudi refinery, is a critical asset physically removed from the Indo-Pacific (where it is required to deter Chinese aggression against Taiwan) or the European theater (where it is required to support Ukraine).¹¹

The U.S. is rapidly approaching a strategic inflection point. In the near term, Washington will be forced to make a catastrophic choice: drastically scale back its air defense umbrella in the Middle East—leaving critical global energy infrastructure and regional partners highly exposed to Iranian strikes—or accept unacceptable gaps in its deterrence posture against peer adversaries in Asia and Europe.¹¹

10.2. Iranian Endurance and the Breaking Point

Conversely, Iran possesses an exceptionally high threshold for material attrition and human suffering, a hallmark of its military doctrine forged during the grueling eight-year Iran-Iraq War.¹⁹ Despite the loss of its Supreme Leader, the destruction of half its ballistic missile force, and the degradation of the IRGC command structure, the Iranian military apparatus demonstrates a remarkable, decentralized ability to endure.⁶ By leveraging the Strait of Hormuz toll system, Tehran ensures a steady stream of non-dollar capital to fund proxy operations, maintain basic state functions, and procure black-market arms.³⁶

However, Iran’s endurance faces a terminal, internal threat. The primary vulnerability of the Islamic Republic is not the exhaustion of its drone supply, but the exhaustion of its internal political coherence and its coercive security forces. Every historical instance of mass domestic unrest in Iran (2009, 2019, 2022) has required exponentially greater applications of state violence to suppress.¹⁰ The ongoing war exacerbates this pressure to an unprecedented degree. The regime is attempting to fight a sophisticated, high-intensity external adversary while simultaneously coercing an increasingly hostile, economically devastated domestic population.³

Furthermore, the installation of Mojtaba Khamenei has shattered the ideological consensus within the ruling elite, depriving the regime of its theological legitimacy.⁷ As the IRGC expends its resources and manpower fighting external threats, its iron grip over domestic security is inevitably weakening.⁷

10.3. Conclusion

The 2026 war will likely not end through a decisive, conventional military victory, nor will precision airstrikes alone engineer a clean regime change.⁷ The conflict has devolved into a brutal test of systemic endurance.

The United States is bound by the hard industrial limits of interceptor production and the overriding imperatives of global great-power competition.¹¹ Iran is bound by the extreme fragility of its domestic political coherence and the unproven legitimacy of its new, dynastic Supreme Leader.¹⁰ Ultimately, the resolution of this conflict will be dictated by the internal dynamics of the Iranian armed forces. If the IRGC’s coercive apparatus falters under the dual strain of coalition airstrikes and mass civil uprisings, the Artesh will face a historic mandate. The regular army may become the final arbiter of Iran’s political future, executing a transition that ends the war, preserves the nation-state, and fundamentally permanently dismantles the revolutionary architecture of the Islamic Republic.⁷

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

Sources Used

1. 2026 Iran war – Wikipedia, accessed April 4, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_war
2. 2026 Iran war | Explained, United States, Israel, Strait of Hormuz, Map, & Conflict | Britannica, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.britannica.com/event/2026-Iran-war
3. US/Israel-Iran conflict 2026 – House of Commons Library, accessed April 4, 2026, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10521/
4. How Iran’s parallel armies and intelligence services protect the regime – YouTube, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lFjBEp4fpE
5. Eternal Rivals? The Artesh and the IRGC – Middle East Institute, accessed April 4, 2026, https://mei.edu/publication/eternal-rivals-artesh-and-irgc/
6. Explainer: the Iranian Armed Forces | ISW, accessed April 4, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/explainer-the-iranian-armed-forces/
7. Real-Time Analysis: Iran Regime Change Unlikely With Airstrikes …, accessed April 4, 2026, https://newlinesinstitute.org/middle-east-center/why-airstrikes-alone-are-unlikely-to-prompt-a-regime-change-in-iran/
8. Iran Update, Special Report, April 3, 2026 | ISW, accessed April 4, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-april-3-2026/
9. Iran said restoring bombed missile bunkers within hours after being struck, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-said-restoring-bombed-missile-bunkers-within-hours-after-being-struck/
10. How the War with Iran Ends – War on the Rocks, accessed April 4, 2026, https://warontherocks.com/2026/04/how-the-war-with-iran-ends/
11. Over 11,000 munitions in 16 Days of the Iran War: ‘Command of the …, accessed April 4, 2026, https://my.rusi.org/resource/over-11000-munitions-in-16-days-of-the-iran-war-command-of-the-reload-governs-endurance.html
12. The global price tag of war in the Middle East – The World Economic Forum, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.weforum.org/stories/2026/03/the-global-price-tag-of-war-in-the-middle-east/
13. Iran Charges $1 Per Barrel Toll via Yuan, Stablecoins, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.chosun.com/english/world-en/2026/04/02/N6JNT5MPLRA7JEWLBH6NDVKCK4/
14. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard imposes yuan-based tolls for Strait of Hormuz transit: Bloomberg, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2026/04/04/irans-revolutionary-guard-imposes-yuan-based-tolls-for-strait-of-hormuz-transit-bloomberg/
15. What to Know About the Artesh, Iran’s Conventional Military – Geopolitical Futures, accessed April 4, 2026, https://geopoliticalfutures.com/what-to-know-about-the-artesh-irans-conventional-military/
16. Order of Battle of the Iranian Artesh Ground Forces | ISW, accessed April 4, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/order-of-battle-of-the-iranian-artesh-ground-forces/
17. A United States Marine’s View of the Artesh and IRGC – Middle East Institute, accessed April 4, 2026, https://mei.edu/publication/united-states-marines-view-artesh-and-irgc/
18. Desertions, Supply Shortages, and Fractures Between the Army and …, accessed April 4, 2026, https://militarnyi.com/en/blogs/desertions-fractures-army-irgc-iran-war/
19. FACTBOX – Iran’s military power: Missiles, drones and deterrence – Anadolu Ajansı, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/factbox-iran-s-military-power-missiles-drones-and-deterrence/3822798
20. Can someone explain the differing roles and capabilities of the Artesh and the IRGC? : r/WarCollege – Reddit, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1r3zyxk/can_someone_explain_the_differing_roles_and/
21. List of equipment of the Iranian Army – Wikipedia, accessed April 4, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Iranian_Army
22. How well armed is Iran, and can it replenish missiles? | ABS-CBN News, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/world/2026/3/26/how-well-armed-is-iran-and-can-it-replenish-missiles-1236
23. Iran – Situation Assessment (February 2026): The Race to Rebuild the Nuclear and Missile Array, Casual Terror and the CRINK, accessed April 4, 2026, https://israel-alma.org/iran-situation-assessment-february-2026-the-race-to-rebuild-the-nuclear-and-missile-array-casual-terror-and-the-crink/
24. Iran Update Special Report, March 31, 2026 | ISW, accessed April 4, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-march-31-2026/
25. Iran’s Future Hinges on IRGC-Artesh Power-Sharing – Geopolitical Futures, accessed April 4, 2026, https://geopoliticalfutures.com/irans-future-hinges-on-irgc-artesh-power-sharing/
26. 2025–2026 Iran–United States negotiations – Wikipedia, accessed April 4, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025%E2%80%932026_Iran%E2%80%93United_States_negotiations
27. Strategic Escalation and Conflict Sustainability in the US-Iran War, accessed April 4, 2026, https://studies.aljazeera.net/en/analyses/strategic-escalation-and-conflict-sustainability-us-iran-war
28. The Arsenal as the Battlefield: The War on Iran and the Return of Counter-Industrial Targeting, accessed April 4, 2026, https://warontherocks.com/2026/04/the-arsenal-as-the-battlefield-the-war-on-iran-and-the-return-of-counter-industrial-targeting/
29. US–Israel Military Operation Against Iran: Are Markets on Edge? – J.P. Morgan, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/global-research/commodities/iran-us-tensions-market-effect
30. Iran Update Special Report, April 2, 2026 – Institute for the Study of War, accessed April 4, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-april-2-2026/
31. Iran Update Evening Special Report, March 12, 2026 – Institute for the Study of War, accessed April 4, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-evening-special-report-march-12-2026/
32. Iran new Supreme Leader in good health, foreign ministry says, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202604029496
33. Mojtaba Khamenei lauds Iraq’s support in new message, remains out of public eye, accessed April 4, 2026, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/mojtaba-khamenei-lauds-iraqs-support-in-new-message-remains-out-of-public-eye/articleshow/129887453.cms
34. Rapid depletion of missile stockpiles in Iran raises concerns about US readiness, accessed April 4, 2026, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2026/03/27/magazine-depth-iran-missiles-stockpile-readiness/
35. Inside Tehran’s toll booth – Atlantic Council, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/inside-tehrans-toll-booth/
36. Iran Hormuz Toll Law: What the Strait Fee Means for Gulf Oil – House of Saud, accessed April 4, 2026, https://houseofsaud.com/iran-hormuz-toll-law/
37. Iran Hormuz Toll Shocker: $1/Barrel Fee Mandates Yuan or Crypto Payments, accessed April 4, 2026, https://cryptorank.io/news/feed/5e75b-iran-hormuz-toll-yuan-crypto
38. Iran Update Special Report, March 29, 2026 | ISW, accessed April 4, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-march-29-2026/
39. What the war in Iran means for China, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/what-war-iran-means-china
40. Economic impact of the 2026 Iran war – Wikipedia, accessed April 4, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_the_2026_Iran_war
41. What Does the Iran War Mean for Global Energy Markets? – CSIS, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-does-iran-war-mean-global-energy-markets
42. How will the Iran war affect the global economy? | Chatham House, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/03/how-will-iran-war-affect-global-economy
43. How could strait of Hormuz closure affect UK food and medicine supplies?, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/02/strait-of-hormuz-iran-closure-uk-food-medicine-supplies
44. It’s not just oil — the Iran war is disrupting helium and aluminum supplies. Here’s the impact., accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-war-helium-aluminum-shortage-impact/
45. From drones to rocket fuel, China and Russia are helping Iran through supply chains, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/from-drones-to-rocket-fuel-china-and-russia-are-helping-iran-through-supply-chains/
46. How Russian and China Tech Underpins Iranian Strategic Depth – SpecialEurasia, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.specialeurasia.com/2026/03/01/russia-china-iran-tech-military/
47. Iran Watch Newsletter: February 2026, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/newsletters/iran-watch-newsletter-february-2026
48. Iranian Officials’ Legal Liability in Russia’s Drone War on Ukraine, accessed April 4, 2026, https://www.justsecurity.org/134930/iran-legal-liability-russia-ukraine/