Robert Kiyosaki Explains Iran’s ‘Mosaic Defence’ Strategy After US–Israel Strikes

Author says Iran’s decentralised military structure could prolong the conflict and raise the cost of victory for Washington and Tel Aviv.

Washington DC: Investor and author Robert Kiyosaki has highlighted what he believes is a crucial factor behind Iran’s ability to withstand a major military strike by the United States and Israel, pointing to Tehran’s decentralised “Mosaic Defence” strategy.

In a social media post analysing the February 28 air strikes on Iran, Kiyosaki said the attack appeared to follow a familiar Western military strategy: eliminate top leadership, dismantle the command structure and trigger the collapse of the regime.

According to him, similar tactics had previously been used during conflicts involving leaders such as Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, where removing central authority contributed to regime collapse.

However, Kiyosaki argued that Iran had spent nearly two decades studying those wars and adapting its military structure to avoid a similar fate. Central to this preparation, he noted, was a doctrine developed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps that disperses command authority across multiple autonomous regional units.

Under the so-called “Mosaic Defence” doctrine, provincial commanders reportedly maintain independent operational control, allowing military units to continue functioning even if communications with central leadership in Tehran are disrupted. The decentralised system is designed to make it difficult for adversaries to paralyse Iran’s military through leadership-targeted strikes.

Kiyosaki also suggested that Iran’s broader strategy may not necessarily focus on outright battlefield victory. Instead, he argued that Tehran could seek to prolong the conflict and impose heavy economic and political costs on its adversaries.

Military analysts have long noted that Iran’s defence strategy emphasises asymmetric warfare and endurance, aiming to stretch conflicts long enough to make them increasingly unpopular and expensive for opposing powers.

Kiyosaki concluded that such an approach could turn the conflict into a “Pyrrhic victory,” where even a military win might come at a cost so high that it undermines the strategic gains of the victors.