Think Tank: The Moment of No Return for Israel, Target: Regime Change

Believing that Israel's "Friday the Thirteenth" attack on Iran will not trigger further escalation is a mistake.

This has finally happened. Israel has attacked Iran's nuclear facilities and military leadership, and is carrying out airstrikes to further weaken its capabilities. As one would expect from an Israeli military operation, these actions seem to have been meticulously planned and are astonishingly effective. For two decades, policymakers, analysts, and experts have been commenting on future scenarios - from unrest in Tehran to total destruction and oil-induced economic recessions - and now we will see these assumptions tested in the coming weeks.

In all this, the high-ranking members of the Trump administration, perhaps from the very beginning of the negotiations, seemed to exclude Steven Witkowski, and appeared completely detached from reality. The first theory thrown aside was that if Iran faces a credible and direct threat of large-scale force, it will completely abandon uranium enrichment. The Trump team openly guided the early stages of the negotiations towards positive directions.

However, on the core issue of whether to allow Iran to retain uranium enrichment in the long term, no real action was ever taken by either side. Trump seems to genuinely believe that, as he is perceived to be a "tougher" leader than his predecessor, he could obtain concessions from Iran that President Barack Obama was unable to achieve.

Another assumption Trump is making, and which is currently being tested, is that Iran may be willing to return to the negotiating table. Trump's post today on Truth Social, more or less, invites Iranian leaders to "capitulate before it's too late."

Trump even told Axios that Israel's attack might "help (him) reach an agreement with Iran." Of course, historically, there have been many negotiations conducted after limited wars clarified the balance of power between the combatants, compelling one side to consider negotiation better than continuing the fight.

For the time being, this explanation underestimates Iran's determination and strategic depth. Ultimately, the U.S. went to Baghdad. However, no serious discussion was held about the capture of Tehran. This Islamic Republic is simply too large and has too many people. From Iran's perspective, it can withstand strikes, retaliate, survive long enough to engage in uranium enrichment or even weaponization someday in the future. A fierce strike against Iran's leadership without U.S. involvement suggests that Trump may understand this. Despite this, like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he has some confidence in regime change.

The absence of the U.S. in this operation surprised many observers, which is not unreasonable. Without U.S. B-2 heavy bombers delivering Massive Ordinance Penetrators (MOPs), this attack lacks the necessary capability to strike deeply buried targets, especially the Fordow uranium enrichment facility. Perhaps more importantly, U.S. involvement would have allowed the U.S. to strike hundreds of additional targets. This is crucial for suppressing Iran's retaliatory capabilities before it deploys its numerous road-mobile ballistic missiles, attack drones, and anti-ship cruise missiles.

Instead, U.S. officials stated that the U.S. is not a co-belligerent. However, this clearly shows that Washington was neither surprised nor angry about Jerusalem's decision to disrupt the next round of nuclear talks scheduled for Sunday. Trump himself admitted today, "I've always known this date," meaning that the announcement of the talks may have been aimed at masking Israel's feint.

The Trump administration bets that Iran will not follow through on its repeated threats to attack U.S. bases in the region, fearing such actions might provoke U.S. military retaliation. This is a risky gamble, especially considering that even minor frictions involving warships or U.S. troops in Iraq or the Persian Gulf could escalate.

Many supporters of this attack may point out that Iran has not made a serious response, confirming their optimistic assumption that the U.S. can avoid intervention and that the energy sector will not be damaged. This would be a mistake. Given the confusion in Iran's military leadership, it may take some time to report the situation to Supreme Leader Khamenei and decide how to escalate. Expecting immediate escalation on the first night has always been unrealistic.

It is worth remembering that three weeks after the start of the 2003 Iraq War, the U.S. was in a similar situation. On April 9th, Baghdad fell, and the Republican Guard's resistance was much weaker than most commentators had anticipated. A significant portion of Iraqis were evidently happy to be rid of Saddam's regime. Less than a month later, President George W. Bush stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier, with a banner reading "Mission Accomplished" behind him. Wars take time to end, and history rarely provides clarity on how they will ultimately be evaluated early on. Today, we all know who won that war: Iran.

Source: The National Interest

Author: Greg Priddy

Date: June 13th

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/1834884651987016/

Disclaimer: The article solely represents the author's viewpoint.