Is the U.S.–Israel–Iran Conflict Entering Phase III?
Residual Target Depletion and the Shift from Asset Destruction to Functional Disruption
- Wu, Shaoyuan
Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center, EPINOVA LLC
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0660-8232
Description
This policy brief examines whether the U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict is entering a third phase and introduces Residual Target Depletion (RTD) as a framework for understanding how prolonged conflict changes the strategic value of targets. It argues that Phase III has not yet been conclusively established, but renewed attacks on commercial shipping, new U.S. strikes inside Iran, Iranian retaliation against U.S. military sites in Bahrain and Kuwait, and the erosion of the interim accord place the conflict in a credible Phase II–III transition zone. The brief proposes that, as previously exposed fixed assets are damaged, hardened, dispersed, substituted, or repeatedly attacked, the marginal strategic return from further disruption declines and strategic competition shifts from asset destruction toward the disruption of the functions that sustain residual operational continuity.
Abstract
The latest escalation along the U.S.–Iran axis raises a central question: is the broader U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict entering Phase III? The evidence remains inconclusive. Renewed attacks on commercial shipping, new U.S. strikes inside Iran, Iranian retaliatory strikes targeting U.S. military sites in Bahrain and Kuwait, and the erosion of the interim accord place the conflict in a credible Phase II–III transition zone. A durable phase transition, however, requires a structural change in how the conflict operates, not merely a temporary increase in strike intensity. If Phase III is emerging, it begins from a fundamentally altered target environment. Earlier phases have already destroyed, disabled, evacuated, hardened, dispersed, or repeatedly exposed many visible high-value assets. This brief introduces Residual Target Depletion (RTD): the progressive decline in the marginal strategic return from further disruption of previously exposed fixed targets. RTD does not mean target exhaustion; it means diminishing returns as assets are damaged, disabled, hardened, dispersed, substituted, or repeatedly exposed. As RTD increases, conflict shifts from asset destruction toward functional disruption. A genuine Phase III would therefore be defined less by larger strikes or a longer target list than by a sustained change in target logic: from attacking visible assets and constraining recovery toward disrupting the distributed functions that sustain residual operational continuity.
Files
Mobile browsers may not display embedded PDF previews reliably. Open the PDF directly for the best reading experience.
Open PDF Download PDF| Name | Type | |
|---|---|---|
| Is the U.S.–Israel–Iran Conflict Entering Phase III Residual Target Depletion and the Shift from Asset Destruction to Functional Disruption.pdf Full-text PDF of the policy brief | application/pdf | Download |
Keywords
- U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict
- Phase III
- Phase II–III transition
- Residual Target Depletion
- RTD
- functional disruption
- asset destruction
- recovery denial
- target logic
- marginal strategic return
- functional centrality
- distributed operations
- networked conflict
- operational continuity
- residual functionality
- target migration
- dispersion
- functional substitution
- maritime security
- Strait of Hormuz
- ISR
- early warning
- distributed basing
- aviation sustainment
- logistics continuity
- network resilience
- interdependent networks
- U.S.–Iran escalation
- strategic competition
- EPINOVA
Subjects
- International security
- Strategic studies
- Military operations
- Networked conflict
- Middle East security
- Maritime security
- Military logistics
- Operational resilience
- Infrastructure networks
- Conflict escalation
- Systems analysis
- Defense policy
- Public policy
Recommended citation
Wu, Shaoyuan (2026), Is the U.S.–Israel–Iran Conflict Entering Phase III? Residual Target Depletion and the Shift from Asset Destruction to Functional Disruption, Policy Brief No. EPINOVA–2026–PB–62, Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center, EPINOVA LLC. https://doi.org/10.67037/epinova.pb.2026.062
APA citation
Wu, S. (2026). Is the U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict entering Phase III? Residual target depletion and the shift from asset destruction to functional disruption. EPINOVA Policy Brief Series, EPINOVA-PB-2026-062. Global AI Governance and Policy Research Center, EPINOVA LLC. https://doi.org/10.67037/epinova.pb.2026.062.
Alternate identifiers
| Scheme | Identifier | Description |
|---|---|---|
| URL | https://epinova.org/policy-brief-1 | Official EPINOVA publication page |
| EPINOVA policy brief number | EPINOVA–2026–PB–62 | Policy brief number printed in the PDF |
| File name | Is the U.S.–Israel–Iran Conflict Entering Phase III Residual Target Depletion and the Shift from Asset Destruction to Functional Disruption.pdf | Source PDF file name |
| Short title | Is the U.S.–Israel–Iran Conflict Entering Phase III? | Short form of the policy brief title |
| Analytical concept | Residual Target Depletion (RTD) | The progressive decline in the marginal strategic return from further disruption of previously exposed fixed targets as they are destroyed, disabled, evacuated, hardened, dispersed, substituted, or repeatedly attacked |
| Analytical concept | Functional disruption | A late-phase target logic focused on disrupting the distributed functions that sustain residual operational continuity rather than only destroying visible fixed assets |
| Conflict-phase concept | Phase II–III transition zone | A provisional analytical condition in which renewed direct escalation may be moving toward a structurally distinct conflict phase but has not yet conclusively crossed the threshold |
Related works
| Relation | Identifier | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| IsPartOf | https://epinova.org/policy-brief-1 | Publication series | EPINOVA Policy Brief Series |
| IsSupplementedBy | https://github.com/EPINOVALLC/EPINOVA-Research | Repository | Supplementary repository and structural archive |
| References | Alberts, Garstka, and Stein (2000). Network centric warfare | Book | Referenced for network-centric operations, connectivity, information flows, and operational architecture |
| References | Buldyrev et al. (2010). Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks | Journal article | Referenced for cascading effects and interdependent-network failure dynamics |
| References | Hu et al. (2016). Recovery of infrastructure networks after localised attacks | Journal article | Referenced for infrastructure recovery sequences and restoration of network functionality |
References
- Alberts, D. S., Garstka, J. J., & Stein, F. P. (2000). Network centric warfare: Developing and leveraging information superiority (2nd ed.). Department of Defense Command and Control Research Program. https://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_NCW.pdf
- Buldyrev, S. V., Parshani, R., Paul, G., Stanley, H. E., & Havlin, S. (2010). Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks. Nature, 464(7291), 1025–1028. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08932
- Hu, F., Yeung, C. H., Yang, S., Wang, W., & Zeng, A. (2016). Recovery of infrastructure networks after localised attacks. Scientific Reports, 6, Article 24522. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24522
- Reuters. (2026a, June 17). The 14-point U.S.-Iran pact as read by U.S. official. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/14-point-draft-us-iran-deal-2026-06-17/
- Reuters. (2026b, July 8). Four oil and gas tankers turn back from Hormuz strait after vessel attacks. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/four-oil-gas-tankers-turn-back-hormuz-strait-after-vessel-attacks-2026-07-08/
- Reuters. (2026c, July 8). Trump says interim accord to end war is “over” after Iranian strikes. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-targets-sites-bahrain-kuwait-after-wave-us-strikes-2026-07-08/
- Reuters. (2026d, July 7). U.S. military launches strikes against Iran, Central Command says. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-military-launches-strikes-against-iran-central-command-says-2026-07-07/
- Reuters. (2026e, June 18). White House sends text of interim U.S.-Iran agreement to U.S. Congress. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/white-house-sends-text-interim-us-iran-agreement-us-congress-2026-06-18/
- U.S. Air Force. (2022, August 23). Air Force Doctrine Note 1-21: Agile combat employment. Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education. https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDN_1-21/AFDN%201-21%20ACE.pdf
- U.S. Air Force. (2025, January 22). Air Force Doctrine Publication 3-0: Operations. Curtis E. LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education. https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_3-0/AFDP3-0Operations.pdf
- U.S. Central Command. (2026, July 7). U.S. forces complete new round of retaliatory strikes against Iran. https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PUBLIC-RELEASES/Article/4535772/us-forces-complete-new-round-of-retaliatory-strikes-against-iran/
- U.S. Marine Corps. (2023, May 9). Tentative manual for expeditionary advanced base operations (2nd ed.). https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Docs/230509-Tentative-Manual-For-Expeditionary-Advanced-Base-Operations-2nd-Edition.pdf