Trump, Iran and Warden’s Five Rings

Our world has become surrounded by the concepts of war: Ukraine, Iran, the Middle East, civil wars across the African continent…
In this 21st century, where technology has brought us closer together, on this blue planet that is the shared living space of all humans and living beings — remember, it was not so long ago, perhaps just a decade — we are moving further away each day from global economic integration and the idea of “we are citizens of the world.”

The Middle East and the Gulf have been dragged into a new war; through coordinated action by the United States and Israel, a large-scale air assault has been carried out against the Iranian government for “multiple” and complex reasons. In a short time, a ring of fire has emerged, pulling the region into conflict and spreading across the entire Middle East, and the fact that effective exit strategies are now being sought suggests that even more complex outcomes may arise. Victory smiles upon those who foresee the course of war, not those who wait for changes to occur and then try to adapt to them. These words, well known in the field of military strategy, should always remain in our minds.

The attention of the global media and its cameras are now focused on this region. The anatomy of the two aircraft carriers in the area or the capabilities of modern munitions are often presented inaccurately and incompletely across screens. Truth is not being pursued; instead, scenarios far removed from factual information are written as if they were part of a live film. This portrayal by the media shapes public opinion, and the global economy responds with speculation. The consequences, as we can see, inevitably reflect on our daily lives, don’t they?

Modern Architecture in Air Power: Warden’s Five Rings

In fact, the Iranian air strikes carried out by Trump and his administration were, in their early days, based on the highly well-planned concept of “AirPower.” Tactical air power aims to dominate the entire battlefield—and they achieved this. This situation recalls the conceptual work and air operation architecture developed in the 1980s under President Reagan by Colonel John Warden. This approach, which offers a valuable guide for analyzing the enemy as a system, divides targets into five rings.

Colonel Warden’s theory, much like President Donald Trump, holds that the purpose of war is to compel the enemy to comply with one’s will.

Warden’s “Five Rings” theory of air power effectively ushered in a new era in target selection for air platforms. Nations form an inverted pyramid within their strategic core—comprising leadership, communication systems, essential production, critical infrastructure, and population. If a country becomes strategically paralyzed, it is defeated and cannot sustain its forces in the field—even if its military units remain intact.

The objective is to disrupt the enemy’s strategy; however, strategy is a broad concept. It includes a goal, the resources available, and the plan for using those resources to achieve that goal.

To shed light on recent events you may have seen on television and to deepen the discussion, let us take another step forward. From here, I will attempt to summarize a vast subject as concisely as possible.

First, let us examine the architectural structure of Warden’s Five Rings theory as currently implemented by President Trump and the Israeli leadership. Historically, one of the most significant shortcomings of air forces has been target selection: what the objective was, how it fit within the overall operation, how priorities were determined, and how outcomes influenced the war as a whole. Warden’s architecture provides commanders planning operations with a unique tool, significantly expanding their ability to select targets systematically. Within the tempo of air warfare, operational priorities are no longer determined randomly or arbitrarily.

During the Gulf War, particularly during the occupation of Kuwait, Colonel John Warden became the architect of the allied air campaign and had the opportunity to implement his theoretical warfare method. Although the plan—based solely on the use of air power—was initially conceived as “Instant Thunder,” a coalition structure was soon preferred. Later, drawing on his experience, the evolved “Thunder” plan was successfully used against the Serbs during the Balkan conflicts in 1999.

This framework is rooted in the seminal work On War by Carl von Clausewitz. Clausewitz argued that to defeat an enemy effectively, a state must direct all its energy toward the points upon which everything depends—what he called the center of gravity, or the hub of all power and movement. In practice, the force most capable of accomplishing this task effectively on the battlefield is the air force.

Hierarchy of the Rings and Target Priorities

Warden takes this principle one step further by developing a concept to guide target selection during wartime. He views the enemy as a system organized in concentric rings; each ring represents a center of gravity, and when struck correctly, it either makes the war prohibitively costly for the enemy or eliminates the enemy’s ability to wage war—temporarily or permanently.

From the innermost to the outermost, the rings decrease in importance as follows:

The leadership ring that controls the system or state: the leaders of the state.
The system ring that provides essential production critical for the survival of the state: oil, electricity, food, and money.
The infrastructure ring that connects the entire system: transportation and communication.
The population ring that constitutes the civilian society of the state.
The warfighting mechanism ring that protects the state from attacks and includes deployed military forces in the field.

Operational Application, Legal and Ethical Boundaries

To achieve objectives more effectively and efficiently, rapid and simultaneous strikes can be directed at the enemy’s innermost ring—its leadership. For example, U.S. and Israeli air forces struck targets on February 28, 2026. If the enemy leadership cannot be targeted, it is recommended to attack the subsequent rings simultaneously in increasing order of priority. In this case, near-perfect timing was achieved for both sides, and the United States and Israel conducted aerial assaults across all rings.

The central “Leadership” ring includes decision-makers, the chain of command, intelligence structures, political leaders, and state authorities—the individuals and mechanisms that steer the country.

As the air campaign progressed, operations within Iranian territory identified between 7,000 and 10,000 significant targets. This list was developed based on Warden’s theory. With aircraft conducting approximately 500 sorties per day, supported by various missile systems, a large portion of these targets was destroyed within roughly ten days. Within a week, few targets would remain, and B-52H Stratofortress aircraft would begin “bomb truck” patrols in Iranian airspace, similar to operations conducted in Afghanistan. Shifting toward opportunistic targets would signal a partial failure for the United States.

Other legal debates—such as going to war without a formal declaration and the challenge of reaching definitive conclusions under the framework of the Geneva Protocol I—remain complex. The situation is clear: in wartime, military leaders may be considered legitimate targets, as they are, by definition, combatants like the forces they command. They are authorized by their governments to participate in hostilities, wear fixed and distinguishable insignia or uniforms recognizable at a distance, carry arms openly, and meet the criteria required to be recognized as lawful combatants under the Hague Convention IV and the 1977 Geneva Protocol I.

Targeting Civilian Leaders in Wartime

Determining the legality and morality of targeting civilian leaders during wartime is far more difficult. This difficulty stems from the fact that the concept of assassination cannot be ignored when examining the targeting of civilian leaders in war. The term assassination is, at best, ambiguous; nevertheless, it has long been condemned as unlawful under international law.

When assessing whether targeting an enemy’s critical infrastructure—that is, the foundational systems that sustain it—is legal and moral, one must consider the extent to which such infrastructure contributes to the interconnected functioning of the system as a single organism. Examples include roads, airports, factories, warehouses, and communication networks.

The legality of targeting critical infrastructure depends on the degree to which it contributes to the enemy’s military action and whether its destruction, capture, or neutralization provides a definite military advantage. If the targeted infrastructure does not contribute to military action and its neutralization does not yield a military advantage, it is not a lawful target. However, if both conditions are met, it may be lawfully targeted.

Setting aside moral objections, directly attacking the population is difficult to justify. To reiterate: direct attacks against civilians are morally reprehensible. Direct attacks on the enemy’s civilian population are indefensible; such actions may instead take the form of psychological operations (PSYOPS) or measures that make civilian life more difficult, such as bombing civilian facilities, hospitals, and water treatment plants.

Colonel Warden’s Five Rings theory is an excellent tool for identifying the enemy’s centers of gravity. However, despite its usefulness, it is important to remember that there are moral and legal constraints affecting targeting within the rings. The true potential of air power can only be realized if we assume that it is capable of doing what we believe it cannot. We must begin by assuming that air power can achieve anything—not merely what it has accomplished in the past.