 |
| Satellite images show unusual truck traffic at the Fordo facility two days before the U.S. attack |
Key details of the impact
- The scale of the operation: Between 02:00 and 03:00 Moscow time, the US Air Force and Navy launched a combined strike on Iranian nuclear facilities using 12 heavy-duty bunker buster bombs and 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
- The mystery of effectiveness: The actual damage to the facilities remains unclear due to the unique circumstance that Iran was warned of the impending strike several days in advance. This allowed:
- Evacuate all personnel;
- Remove radioactive materials and valuable equipment;
- Avoid an environmental disaster like Chernobyl.
Political nuances and "contractual arrangements"
1. Limited impact strategy: The United States and Israel openly stated that the strike was targeted and would not be repeated if Iran did not respond.
2. Iran's response: Tehran retains the right to respond "when and how it sees fit" by continuing rocket attacks on Israel, but avoiding attacks on American targets.
3. Signs of hidden agreements:
- Iran's warning indicates the presence of non-public communication channels;
- Evacuation of hazardous materials is a joint interest in preventing a humanitarian catastrophe;
- The absence of attacks on the United States may be an element of the temporary status quo.
The dilemma of the Iranian leadership: The hopeless triangle
The Iranian leadership is facing a difficult dilemma, where every possible response is associated with serious risks and consequences. If Iran decides not to respond, it could lead to mass protests, loss of legitimacy, and even the risk of overthrowing the regime. However, this approach will preserve the country's infrastructure, although it will lead to political isolation and loss of popular support.
On the other hand, if Iran decides to respond to the United States or Israel, it could trigger a full-scale military confrontation, as a result of which the Iranian armed forces could be destroyed, the elites physically eliminated, and the regime replaced by force. This will lead to a total military defeat and occupation of the country.
Thus, Iran finds itself in a situation where every choice is associated with high risks and negative consequences, and it has to find a balance between demonstrating strength and maintaining stability within the country.
Forecast and conclusions
- The scenario of "Controlled escalation": The situation resembles a complex game in which all parties are trying to save face. Iran may limit itself to symbolic strikes (for example, against desert bases) in order to satisfy its domestic audience without provoking the United States into an all-out war.
- The role of the internal factor: Pressure on the regime from the population is a key constraint. Tehran is forced to balance between a show of force and survival.
- The future of negotiations: Strike warning and evacuation are signs of working informal channels. This leaves room for future agreements on the nuclear program under the guise of "mutual deterrence."
The night strike highlighted not the military, but the political and diplomatic phase of the conflict, where the parties maneuver between annihilation and compromise. The regime in Tehran survives not by force, but because of Washington's unwillingness to create a power vacuum in a region of 85 million people.
No comments:
Post a Comment