She describes it as “a kind of arrogance and an unwarranted confidence in complex data systems.”
In theory, MDO offers seamless integration across land, air, sea, cyber, and space domains. In practice, however, it depends on near-perfect data flows and constant connectivity.
“When the system is weakened at any single point,” Kwiatkowski explains, “the entire system becomes more vulnerable to missing, delayed, or corrupted data.”
The US-Israeli approach, heavily reliant on centralized command, offensive operations, and AI-driven targeting, has the effect of suppressing initiative at lower levels, the analyst notes.
“Trust in AI for targeting decisions has become a substitute for a coherent strategy with clear and focused objectives,” she warns.
In contrast, Iran employed a decentralized, survivable, and locally repairable defense system built around well-trained and trusted operators. Its “mosaic” approach is fundamentally defensive in nature.
Despite extensive US-Israeli precision strikes (including PrSM missiles), cyberattacks, and electronic warfare operations, Iran’s resilience held firm. As Kwiatkowski puts it: “Bombs don’t change minds.”
“Political inconsistency and ignorance cannot convince a nation that is defending itself against clearly illegal and unjust attacks,” she added.While the US and Israel may be capable of winning individual battles — though that has not been clearly demonstrated in this conflict — they risk becoming strategically weakened, losing the initiative, and ultimately being forced to withdraw while attempting to evade accountability for numerous tactical, strategic, and intelligence failures.