MARKET PERSPECTIVE

By J Mulraj

Feb 21-27, 2026, 2026

The calculus of asymmetrical warfare

Image created using Raphael

In the Biblical story, David, a young shepherd, used a sling to hurl a stone to knock out a giant, Goliath. It is, perhaps, the first instance of an asymmetrical contest.

US President Donald Trump is trying to pressurise Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Hosseini Khamenei, into renouncing his plan to develop a nuclear weapon. As part of such pressure, he has already positioned one aircraft carrier group, the USS Abraham Lincoln, and has summoned another, the largest, USS Gerald R. Ford, to the region. More than 150 military aircraft, including F 16s, F 22s and F 35 Lightening II, have been positioned near Iran, in what is considered to be the biggest military build up since the Iraq war. It includes air defence batteries like Patriot and THAAD. The buildup of this size is intended to cower Iran into submission.

Against this Goliath, a smaller David (Iran) has to resort to asymmetrical warfare. It has built up an inventory of short and medium range missiles (including the Shahab 3, Ghadr 110 and the Khorramshahr and Sejjil/Ashoura missiles with a range of 1000-2000 kms.), and a large inventory of drones including the Shahed loitering munition drone, successfully battle tested by Russia in the Ukraine war.

Now, the US Tomahawk sea launched cruise missile has a combat radius of 1600 kms, which would require the military ships to come closer to the shore, to be able to attack deeper into Iran. That would bring them within range of Iran’s medium range missiles, whose range is 1000-2000 kms.

The F 35 has a combat radius of 1100 kms but with the huge advantage of stealth. It is believed, though not confirmed, that Iran has purchased Chinese radar to detect the stealth fighter.

As per this video a significant quantity of USA’s THAAD interceptor missiles were used up by Israel, after it and US attacked Iran in June 2025. In retaliation, Iran launched a barrage of long range missiles which Israel had to intercept. In a day, Israel fired one year’s production capability of the interceptor missile. If true, would the inventory of interceptor missiles be enough to stanch the attack by the thousands of Iranian medium range missiles? The US will probably seek to hit Iranian missile facilities in a first strike.

In the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Azerbaijan had effectively used loitering munitions. These are drones which loiter, or stand still, above a target, until the right time, when they swoop down on it and self destruct. They are also called kamikaze drones. Iran has several, produced by it. They cost perhaps under $40000 apiece, much less than the missile sent to destroy them, costing over a million dollars. That’s financially crippling asymmetrical warfare.

Iran has, as per this video  got delivery of Chinese anti ship missile CM-302, a supersonic missile that poses a threat to US naval assets.

The US undoubtedly has greater military strength than Iran, but a military encounter with Iran would not be a cake walk.

A big danger to the global economy would be an Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which is 33 kms at it’s narrowest point. With 20% of oil trade passing through this Strait, any blockage would further shoot up the price of crude oil. Brent crude has already increased to $72/barrel. Insurance costs in a conflict zone is also higher.

At the moment both sides are in talks in Geneva, to continue in Vienna, the HQ of the International Atomic Agency. This may indicate some progress. The two American negotiators, Steve Witcoff and Jared Kushner, are not qualified on technical matters relating to nuclear weapons. Military action would not begin whilst talks are on, so the world may breathe for a few days more.

It’s rumoured that some military advisors have cautioned Trump about a military engagement with Iran considering all these factors. Perhaps hit would be sensible for him to chicken out even at the risk of enhancing his reputation as TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out).

Last week the BSE Sensex closed flat, at 81287.

Stockmarkets are rather blithe about the dangers of a US-Iran conflict. There’re is a risk of regional escalation. There is a danger to global economic growth from a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and the spike in oil prices. Also from the disruption in trade and the hike in logistics costs.

Jingoistic global leaders divert resources from human development into destructive wars.

They would let humans starve in order to feed the dogs of war! Fie on them!

There would be a political cost to the losing side.

In India, a Supreme Court bench has advocated the creation of a mechanism to make voting compulsory in elections, to strengthen democracy.

One would humbly ask the SC to, instead, first find a mechanism to ensure that politicians found guilty of criminal offence should not be allowed to contest until their conviction is overturned. Today, 251/543 Members of Parliament, or 42%, have been convicted of a criminal offence. Of these, 171 face serious criminal charges of attempt to rape, murder, kidnapping and crimes against women. It’s a crying shame that these people should be allowed to contest as long as their final appeal is pending.

This only encourages these law makers not to change the system that permits adjournments ad nauseum so that they can continue to get elected.

It’s time to flip this around. Anyone convicted of a criminal offence should not be allowed to contest until their conviction is overturned. Immediately, 42% of MPs would usher in speedy reforms, disallowing adjournments. The backlog of 50 million cases would start reducing.

THIS IS HOW DEMOCRACY CAN BE STRENGTHENED. Not by making it compulsory for citizens to vote for criminals. But to clean the Augean stables. An apt analogy, looking to the horse trading that goes on once the elections are over. Why does the SC not devise a mechanism to prevent the kind of party hopping and breaking of elected Governments, ones that defy the electoral mandate? Does such party hopping promote democracy?

If a diplomatic solution to the Iran situation is arrived at, the stockmarket would rally. If none is, and a military course is pursued, it would result in a spike in crude oil, a disruption in global trade, and a fall in stock markets.
———————————-

Comments may be sent to: jmulraj@asiaconverge.com