[By Guancha Network columnist Chen Feng]

As external parties speculated on when and how the US would intervene in the current Iran-Israel conflict, on June 21st, Trump claimed on his self-created social media platform "Truth Social":

"We have successfully completed attacks on three of Iran's nuclear facilities, including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. All aircraft are now outside of Iranian airspace. Heavily loaded bombs have fallen on the main facility at Fordow. All aircraft are safely on their way back. Congratulations to our great American warriors. There is no other army in the world that could do this. Now it’s time for peace! Thank you for your attention to this matter."

The shoe of Israel and the US attacking Iran's nuclear facilities almost dropped fourteen years ago, and it has finally dropped now. It must be said that this was both unexpected and reasonable.

One

In 2012, after Netanyahu became Israel's prime minister for the second time, he immediately pointed to a chart at the United Nations General Assembly, trying to persuade the world that Iran was just one wire away from having nuclear weapons and must be stopped immediately. This was during Obama's era, as the US was planning the Iran nuclear deal and opposed any strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Netanyahu threatened to act alone, but if the US really opposed it, Israel lacked the qualification to act independently. Israel's dependence on US support was comprehensive; any reduction in US assistance would be unbearable for Israel.

Trump has been one of the most sympathetic presidents to Israel in recent years. Even without explicit US support, Netanyahu had reason to believe that he could count on tacit US approval, at least avoiding punishment from the US. In fact, the operation was highly coordinated between the US and Israel. Trump boasted that he and Netanyahu worked "as a team," saying perhaps no previous team had ever collaborated like this. Rubio lied.

Israel's top security consideration is "never again," referring to the national catastrophe of the Nazi Holocaust against the Jewish people. After the "Al-Aqsa Flood," the Iranian nuclear threat became a major concern.

Arabs and Sunni Muslims in the Middle East are not friendly toward Iran, which is Shiite and Persian. Using anti-Israel sentiment to rally support and gain political legitimacy is Iran's primary way to break through its predicament. Based on experiences from missile bombardments during the Iran-Iraq War and out of a need to break Israel's military advantage, Iran has developed ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones, and loitering munitions, which it has used extensively in several conflicts, including the current retaliation against Israel.

The threat from Iran's missiles has materialized, but its nuclear threat has not. Fourteen years ago, it was just one wire short; fourteen years later, it is still just one wire short, and no one can say for sure whether Iran intends to connect that last wire.

Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, Maxar satellite imaging company.

Israel claims Iran is just months away from having nuclear weapons, which is the justification for the current strike. Iran has consistently denied developing nuclear weapons, and the US intelligence community does not believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons either. On March 25th, Director of National Intelligence Gabbard clearly stated in congressional testimony that the intelligence community continues to assess that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and that Supreme Leader Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.

However, Gabbard also indicated that "Iran's decades-long taboo against discussing nuclear weapons in public has disappeared, which may embolden nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making bodies." She also believes that Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium has reached unprecedented levels for a non-nuclear-armed state.

Iran has been enriching uranium to 60%, with the International Atomic Energy Agency estimating that Iran has accumulated 400 kilograms of 60% highly enriched uranium. Nuclear-grade uranium fuel has a uranium-235 concentration of 3-5%, while anything over 20% is considered highly enriched uranium, but weapons-grade requires over 90%.

Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which does not prohibit signatories from enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. Only Iran can answer why it has enriched uranium to such an awkwardly high level of 60%. Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world to produce and accumulate 60% highly enriched uranium. While this is not quite "one wire" away from having nuclear weapons, it still requires an additional 30% enrichment to reach weapon-grade uranium. However, for Israel, this is already intolerably close to possessing nuclear weapons.

Central Command Chief General Kurilla claimed in congressional testimony on June 10th that if Iran decided to "race toward building a nuclear weapon," it had enough enriched uranium stockpiles and centrifuges to produce up to 25 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium in "about a week" and enough to manufacture up to 10 nuclear weapons within three weeks.

However, IAEA Director General Grossi said in an interview with CNN on June 17th, "We have no evidence that anyone in Iran is systematically developing nuclear weapons." Even if Iran wanted to race toward building a nuclear weapon, this "is not something that will happen tomorrow, maybe not even in a few years."

Israel "will never allow" Iran to possess nuclear weapons; small, densely populated Israel cannot afford any nuclear strike. The US also "will never allow" Iran to possess nuclear weapons; the world police cannot accept any "neighborhood tough guy" possessing a big weapon. But apart from regional US forces, Iran's nuclear weapons pose no threat to the US, nor do Iran's missiles reach the US. If the US were to withdraw entirely from the Greater Middle East, completely detaching itself from Iran, Iran's missiles and nuclear weapons would not be able to touch the US. With North Korea's example ahead, Iran's nuclear weapons actually lack the "absolute necessity" to be eliminated.

Iran's "last wire" strategy puts the US and Israel in a difficult position. On one hand, eliminating Iran's nuclear threat once and for all is the top priority now that the threat is closer than ever before. On the other hand, if the "surgery" is not clean and thorough, the "postoperative recurrence" will intensify.

Netanyahu is taking a dangerous gamble. This is his last chance in his political career, and he might even harbor the idea of causing panic and power vacuums by killing many senior Iranian military and political leaders, creating distrust among the Iranian people toward their government, and thus triggering internal strife and regime change. Israeli assassinations of Hezbollah and Hamas leaders have never triggered such internal strife and shifts in political lines, and it is unlikely to happen in Iran either.

Two

The question facing the US and Israel is: Can the "surgical strike" against Iran's nuclear capabilities be thoroughly successful? Israel cannot achieve it, so what about the US?

Iran's nuclear capabilities were originally grown under a blockade. In other words, if Iran's nuclear capabilities could grow the first time, they could grow a second time, and the second growth might be even more rapid and unpredictable.

Militarily speaking, even if Israel's air force is powerful, it cannot attack deeply buried (reportedly over 90 meters deep), fortified facilities storing nuclear materials and operating centrifuges. The US's 13.6-ton GBU-57 bunker-buster bomb can only penetrate up to 60 meters underground. In theory, using the first GBU-57 to blast a deep hole and then using the second to penetrate further and explode again could potentially destroy underground structures below 90 meters, but the difficulty is unimaginable.

Only the B-2 bomber can carry and drop the GBU-57. In theory, a C-130 could also drop the GBU-57 like cargo, so as long as the US provides it, Israel could deploy it itself. However, in reality, the slow, non-stealthy, and cumbersome C-130 is only feasible in extreme situations or when the enemy has no air defense.

Israel claims to control Iranian airspace west of Tehran. Is this bravado or reality? Only testing it will reveal. However, it can be imagined that Netanyahu told Trump: "I've taken care of the hardest and riskiest part; all you need to do is score the final goal to make history."

For someone who likes to take credit and especially enjoys boasting about doing what others cannot, this was a hard temptation to resist. No wonder he got excited and ordered Iran to "unconditionally surrender." He also said the US knows where Khamenei is, but he hasn't given the order to eliminate him. He promised to make a decision within two weeks.

According to Reuters reports, after learning of Trump's "decision within two weeks," Israel called Trump via a conference call to express unwillingness to wait two weeks, as the opportunity was fleeting. If the US didn't act soon, Israel would act alone.

How Israel plans to act alone remains a closely guarded secret. Considering the lack of conventional weapons capable of destroying deeply buried reinforced facilities, Israel might threaten to use nuclear weapons. Of course, this would cross countless thresholds, and the US would inevitably be dragged along.

Is this why Trump "had to" approve the deployment of B-2 bombers to attack Iran? We don't know. After being labeled TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out), Trump was indeed eager to prove he wasn't TACO.

However, even if the US deploys B-2 bombers to drop GBU-57s, not only would it require unimaginable precision in consecutive hits, but it would also require sufficient bombing time windows to complete such delicate operations, yet the effectiveness of the attack would still be hard to guarantee. Apart from bombs exploding underground, verifying the results would be difficult. Whether the nuclear materials and facilities are exactly where intelligence determines, and whether they have been completely destroyed, can only be verified on-site or even deep underground.

Unsurprisingly, Iran claims the nuclear materials have been transferred. The US and Israel can claim they have destroyed them. But everyone knows that without on-site verification, this is a "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead." Then what?

Indeed, many senior Iranian nuclear scientists have died in the attacks, and nuclear facilities have been destroyed. Flesh can be eradicated, but knowledge cannot; facilities can be damaged, but they can also be rebuilt. Nuclear science is not mysterious today; uranium enrichment and weaponization are engineering details, and Iran has already walked this path once; walking it again would only be faster. The historical experiences of Gaddafi and Saddam, along with the massive attacks by Israel and the US today, may have strengthened Iran's belief: if someone says you have nuclear weapons, you'd better have them.

Three

A more pressing issue is that Iran's missiles and loitering munitions continue to attack Israeli targets, with port facilities in Haifa being hit and catching fire. Conducting a protracted war of attrition is Iran's most realistic and effective countermeasure.

No one can say for sure how much capability Iran has for long-term missile launches. Israel has sufficient interception means, but it imposes significant economic and military burdens. Some say the "Arrow"-series (Israel's primary ballistic missile interceptor) inventory is running low, but fortunately, Iran's ballistic missile inventory is not infinite either.

However, the cost of loitering munitions is low, and Iran produces them entirely domestically, making long-term attrition warfare possible. Loitering munitions at low altitude and speed are relatively easy to intercept, but this requires constant readiness of Israeli fighters and surface-to-air missiles, constantly on guard to intercept, disrupting civilian production and life.

Even US involvement wouldn't change this. During the Gulf War, Saddam's "Scud" missiles continued to be launched at Israel even under the searchlight of US F-15E fighters until Schwarzkopf's ground forces swept across. The same applies now; unless US ground troops occupy Iran, it would be very difficult to completely prevent Iran from launching loitering munitions at Israel.

In a sense, if Iran persists with loitering munition attacks, it can gradually change the battlefield situation or force the enemy to seek political compromise through prolonged warfare akin to the resistance against the Japanese occupation, accumulating small victories day by day.

Syria is rebuilding from scratch and lacks proper defense; this is somewhat manageable. However, Iran's loitering munitions also put pressure on Jordan and Iraq. On one hand, Iran's loitering munitions need to traverse Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, making it beyond reproach for Jordanian and Iraqi fighters to intercept. On the other hand, allowing Israeli combat aircraft to use Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, even intercepting Iranian loitering munitions within their territory, with debris causing damage on the ground, would be unacceptable to the Arab population in these countries. Two or three times could be excused with various reasons, but long-term would be another matter altogether.

Without using Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, Israel cannot proceed with further airstrikes on Iran. If Israel's air force can only retreat to conduct air defense interceptions within its own territory, this would be too passive.

Don't forget, Iran also has Houthi allies. Whether Hezbollah and Hamas will continue to remain dormant is uncertain.

Moreover, Israel and the US need more than just eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities; they also need to engineer regime change in Iran to fundamentally reverse Iran's anti-Israel sentiment. Compared to the physical threat posed by Iran's nuclear weapons, Iran's leadership in the Middle East's anti-Israel sentiment poses a greater ideological threat. In the Gaza War, this has already transcended the boundaries of Shiites and Sunnis and successfully brought in the Houthis, causing Israel and the US great concern.

On June 21st, Trump delivered a national speech. Associated Press.

Iran is not without domestic political problems. The lower strata of Iranian society have a strong Islamic sentiment, which is the mass base of the Islamic Revolution; Iran's elite and intellectual class have a strong pro-American sentiment; the Revolutionary Guard Corps' contradictions with the regular armed forces may be even greater than those between the Nazi SS and the Wehrmacht. Such divisions make Iran's domestic politics full of contradictions and a persistent tug-of-war.

Iran is a proud nation; external threats and survival challenges can unite a divided nation. Israel's relentless bombings might precisely play such a role. America's involvement further solidifies Iran's unity and resistance, possibly even suppressing Iran's remaining pro-American factions for a long time. Religious authority and secular forces may downplay their differences and seek compromise paths in the face of real survival challenges. Perhaps it's time for Iran to consider a united front.

Conversely, on the US-Israel side, relying solely on air power cannot completely eliminate Iran's military potential. To verify the complete elimination of Iran's nuclear threat and promote regime change, ground forces would be needed. However, the painful lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan might deter the US from considering such actions. In Iraq, there were British forces following behind; in Afghanistan, the entire NATO and "NATO Today" followed. In Iran, however, no one might follow, not even Israel; the sight of Jewish boots treading Iranian soil is a taboo that no American dare violate.

Perhaps both the US and Israel only have limited warfare in mind: punishing Iran enough so that Iran must stop. But limited warfare often only limits the aggressor while being unlimited for those fighting for survival. If Iran refuses to stop, Israel and the US face the prospect of endless warfare, with only ground occupation ending the war. This is something neither Israel nor the US wants to face. Israel lacks the national strength for this, and expanding US military intervention in the Greater Middle East contradicts both Trump's isolationist political theme and the rare consensus across American politics to shift strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific.

Both Netanyahu and Trump have threatened to eliminate Khamenei, but this solves nothing. Historical experience shows that leaders are just flesh and blood; the destruction of their physical forms does not equal the elimination of ideas, which are the fundamental motivations inspiring people to fight resolutely. Thus, new leaders continue to emerge, and unfinished causes continue. Both Israel and the US have historically eliminated leaders of opposing forces, achieving only the postponement of their forces' gathering, never truly eradicating the threat.

Israel's survival strategy is: since it cannot completely resolve the issue, it will indefinitely postpone the threat. However, the US cannot indefinitely get bogged down in the Greater Middle East; Israel has no choice but to stay, while the US does. But Trump chose to "take orders from Netanyahu," which may lead to him consuming politically unsustainable capital at the worst time.

Trump's power base comes from the MAGA faction. Whether as part of the white left or the establishment and vested interests, American Jews are exactly the opposite of the MAGA faction. Trump's agenda is "America First MAGA," for which he initiated tariff wars and government layoffs and cuts, causing chaos. He boasts of understanding economics, but an inflation tsunami is on the horizon; the rise in oil prices due to the Iran conflict will exacerbate it. The "reciprocal tariffs 90-day grace period" is about to expire, with $6.5 trillion in US debt due before the end of June. Bombing Iran to divert attention at this moment would only add a millstone to a camel's back.

Trump boasted that he and Netanyahu worked "as a team," saying perhaps no previous team had ever collaborated like this. After the Gaza War, Israel became a pariah, which is a policy of making enemies on all sides. Trump doesn't fear making enemies because he knows that in the two-party rivalry, half would stand by him due to supporting MAGA or disliking the Democrats. But things are different now.

In politics, the Democratic Party is "anti-Trump at all costs," and within the Republican establishment, some strongly support Israel while others are less so, but the MAGA faction of Republicans firmly opposes foreign military interventions, especially "returning to the Middle East." Trump's unauthorized military action would certainly reopen the controversy over presidential war powers, with results that are almost always detrimental to both the current and future presidents. After the Gaza War, anti-Israel sentiment in the US reached unprecedented heights. Trump has already caused significant controversy by suppressing anti-Israel sentiment under the guise of opposing anti-Semitism. While Americans might support eliminating Iran's nuclear threat, there is little support for the US re-entering the Middle East militarily.

To build achievements and prove himself bold and decisive, Trump risks alienating his MAGA base, shaking his own foundation of power. Worse still, if he bombs Iran but fails to rescue Israel when it suffers from Iranian missile and loitering munition attacks, even staunch supporters of Israel within the Republican establishment would oppose him. Expanding US military operations in Iran would offend countless taboos, leaving him in a lose-lose situation.

Reportedly, Vance opposed sending troops during the Israel-US phone call. He was craftier than Trump.

From Netanyahu's perspective, after the "Al-Aqsa Flood," he needs to save his political life and his political legacy. His escalation of the Gaza War, provoking Hezbollah, and now directly striking Iran are all done in the name of "securing lasting peace for Israel." But if "lasting peace" turns into "endless war," Israel's public opinion and US support won't hold.

Netanyahu has also set a precedent for "unprovoked war initiation." When Israel assassinated Haniya, Iran launched missile attacks, and Israel retaliated, which could still be argued as "self-defense." But when Iran did nothing and Israel launched a large-scale attack based merely on a "last wire" that has existed for over a decade and supposedly imminent danger, even if a ceasefire is eventually achieved, Iran can justifiably retaliate "unprovoked" in the future.

In other words, one day, whenever Iran feels ready, it can justifiably rain missiles on Israel. Israel will retaliate, but it cannot eliminate Iran's war potential. Then wait for the next round.

This is "securing lasting peace for Israel"?

No matter why Trump took the hot coal for Netanyahu, they both have to hold onto it.

This article is an exclusive contribution to Guancha Network, and the views expressed are purely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the platform's stance. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited; for permission, please contact us. Follow Guancha Network on WeChat (guanchacn) for daily interesting articles.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7518926066422596131/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and welcome your feedback in the buttons below to indicate your stance.