On the evening of June 22, 2025, the turbulent history of the Middle East recorded another chapter. American bombers and submarines struck critical Iranian nuclear facilities. What is not yet known, and we would do well to remain cautious, is whether there are more chapters to be written on the crucial issue of Iran acquiring a nuclear arsenal…
The impressive military operation was a show of power on the part of the United States. As expected, this was used to its fullest in terms of communication, with an audience far beyond the Islamic Republic. Moreover, the result was completely compatible with the “Trump doctrine”, known by the acronym MAGA (Make America Great Again). Trump’s “restoration” of America certainly also involves a show of military power.
It remains to be seen whether the government of the eccentric American president will be able to achieve a similar victory in the economic sector. This may not offer such impressive images. However, for true connoisseurs of geopolitical balances, this ranks higher, since it is the indispensable condition for maintaining and further expanding the military advantage…
Need for detachment
Returning to the American strike on Iran, the first thing that a cool-headed and detached perspective would identify would be that although it is a very great success, it did not win the war. It is a very important and potentially catalytic success. However, it did not ultimately decide whether Iran will acquire a nuclear arsenal or not. Logically, it should be taken for granted that it will greatly influence the development, but nothing is over yet.
First, we must wait for the analysis of the results of the bombing. Were the centrifuges used for uranium enrichment destroyed? Did the Americans, through the use of six GBU-57 armor-piercing bombs from B-2 Spirit bombers, manage to “open a way” – assuming that each one was directed with absolute precision in a way that would widen the “hole” they created so as to reach a depth of possibly more than 100 meters in a mountain?
Let’s wait. Logically, Trump, as impulsive as he is, would not risk appearing so confident about the outcome if he did not have an initially very positive image of the outcome of the operation from his military leadership. On the other hand, the Israeli celebrations are also understandable, since by definition the development was positive for their goals. However, they know that the ultimate objective, namely the definitive abandonment of Iran’s intention to develop a nuclear arsenal, has not been achieved.
Regime change…
It remains to be seen in practice how much the strikes have succeeded in delaying the nuclear program. That is, how much time Israel has bought, during which it will do everything to reach its final goal. The only thing that would ensure international intervention and control of Iran’s nuclear activities would be the collapse of the Islamic regime. However, the extent to which it has been pressured and whether it is in danger cannot be said categorically – based on the available information –. Only estimates can be made.
At present, in the major cities of Iran we have not seen any anti-regime demonstrations, but we have not seen any similar ones with slogans like “death to America”, supporting the regime. If there are demonstrations against the regime, what will happen? Will the security forces face problems, such as provocations on the ground (e.g., unidentified gunfire or suicide drone strikes) aimed at causing internal political unrest? No one knows. The only thing certain is that Israel wants regime change. But this is also the most difficult part of the equation.
Whether the warring parties have any “aces up their sleeves” will be proven in the near future. For now, it should be noted that Trump made sure to clarify in his public statements that the US goal is not regime change in Iran. This position also reflects the realization of the mistake that had preceded it in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein may have been who he was, but the problem caused by the collapse of his regime was worse than the one being faced. Chaos, anarchy, and multiple armed centers of power are harder to control than a regime. And Saddam publicly declared that he would form an army to liberate Jerusalem.
Nuclear power, however, makes a difference, especially in a tiny territorial state, like the Jewish one. At this point, the difference in perspective between a superpower and a local state actor, small in size, even though of disproportionately great power, mainly military, becomes apparent. The superpower sees it as a tactical detail of a grand strategic picture. The small local power as an absolute strategic threat…
Once the hawk sits down, the strength of the Islamic regime will be seen in practice. Similarly, the next moves of the Israeli leadership will be seen. In the meantime, it remains to be seen what the consequences of American involvement will be. Will reflexes, e.g. of China and Russia and if so, what form will their intervention take?
Nuclear offers
North Korea’s Kim Jong-un has already declared his readiness to give Iran nuclear weapons. As much as this statement needs explanation, its essence is by definition problematic for everyone. Can North Korea cancel with such an action in practice any delay in the Iranian nuclear program achieved by the military actions of the US and Israel?
For now, the Israelis have recorded a great tactical victory. However, they have not yet reached their strategic goal. And the resilience, when it comes to war, does not only concern the regimes. It also concerns the ability to support the war effort for a long time.
Because military conflicts gradually undermine economic robustness, which in turn is reflected in the military means used. It is also the resilience of societies. Israelis have learned to live with war. However, there is a limit to tolerance in everything. And the issue of the Strait of Hormuz has not yet been raised, so that all of humanity, but especially the strategically hypnotized European Union, would become a party to the consequences…
