Many judge events according to a conditioned reflex: assessments depend more on the opinion of Trump and Netanyahu, than on the Iranian reality. The regime’s recent massacres had fallen into Western indifference. But the scale of the rebellion and the strength of the rejection of the ayatollahs have accelerated the final confrontation, changing the calculations on the ratios of forces on the ground.
The Iranian issue has been weighing on the minds of the world for 47 years: since the Islamic revolution and the hostage-taking at the American embassy in Tehran. During this half century, the ayatollahs built their Persian empire. At the expense of the people, deprived of rights, well-being and a dignified future, they financed terrorist militias, started wars, and built alliances with Russia and China.
By instrumentalizing the Palestinian tragedy for their own interests, they gained sympathy from segments of Arab and Western public opinion, to the point of global indifference to the massacres of thousands of protesters carried out by the regime in January. However, the final result created a favorable conjuncture for the US-Israeli attack. Ayatollah Khamenei was killed, a chapter of history closed: he had also been at the side of the first supreme leader, Khomeini.
THE BIG AMERICAN BET, WHY TRUMP ATTACKED IRAN
Iran’s isolation is evident. A broad moderate Sunni Arab coalition reconvened yesterday; it condemned the Iranian retaliatory attacks, but not the initial attack by the United States and Israel. This time there is no danger that the external attack will unite the Iranian population around the regime. On the contrary, in recent demonstrations against the Islamic dictatorship, calls for a “liberating” intervention from abroad have been increasingly heard. Trump was criticized for promising help to the Iranian people during the January massacres, an intervention that did not come.
Why did Trump finally decide to act, and what are his real objectives? First, there was a diplomatic negotiation, which confirmed the regime’s inflexibility. No concessions on key files: uranium enrichment, missile arsenals, support for the “mercenary armies” of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. For Trump, it is about neutralizing, first and foremost, these three threats. Then, two other objectives were clearly added: beheading the security apparatus responsible for the January massacres; overthrowing the leadership group.
A EKZISTON “VARIANTI MADURO”?
This does not rule out the “Maduro variant.” If the Americans and Israelis have a fifth column inside, if a faction of the Iranian ruling class wants to “bury” not only Khamenei’s body, but his strategy and policies, Washington and Tel Aviv could enjoy a success similar to Venezuela. Not a victory for democracy; but a reversal of alliances, with Iran returning to where it was in 1979: ready to abandon hostility against America, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.
For now, everything remains hypothetical. The unknown is related to this faction within the regime, ready to deny 47 years of history, to capitulate and change sides. Its role is essential, if it exists, because no regime change achieved solely by airstrikes is remembered. Trump does not want to commit “boots on the ground” either: Vice President JD Vance has been categorical about this. A power vacuum, the risk of another Libya, must also be avoided. Iranian civil society, although vibrant and courageous, does not have an organized political opposition.
ISRAEL’S ROLE AND NETANYAHU’S PRESSURE
What convinced Trump of Netanyahu’s arguments, who insisted on this offensive? The starting point is the observation that Tehran refused to negotiate on its missile arsenal and support for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Continuing negotiations would prolong the stalemate, giving the regime time and political oxygen. For Khamenei, survival, even physical, was a victory. There was the option of a short American attack, like the one of last June 21, this time focused on the structures of the Pasdaran and the Basij militias, responsible for suppressing the protesters.
But a limited action would have modest effects on the Iranian strategic calculation. The option of a prolonged operation prevailed, to behead the Iranian leadership and force what remained to choose: between survival at the price of drastic concessions or an existential conflict. A weighty element was the credibility of the United States. After the “red line” that Barack Obama declared in 2013 against the Syrian dictator Assad for using chemical weapons, and which was subsequently not implemented, a repetition would convince Tehran that Washington avoids confrontation when the cost increases.
GLOBAL FACTORS: CHINA, ENERGY AND TAIWAN
Another point of contact with Venezuela: energy and competition with China. The combination of a political change in Tehran and the fall of Maduro in Venezuela would reduce China’s energy security, which was supplied by both of these providers. A strike on Iran affects global balances, including the Taiwan issue.
THE RISK OF A POWER VACUUM
Another consideration: it is better not to wait for collapse, but to guide it. Hyperinflation, the water crisis, corruption and protests suggested a structural decline in the ayatollahs’ power. An active involvement of the United States could guide the transition and prevent Russia or China from filling a political vacuum!
Trump also faces a domestic front. “MAGA” America hates “endless wars in the Middle East.” Congress reacted when this president ordered military action without consulting it. Protests against this war have been announced in several American cities.
Many judge events according to a conditioned reflex: assessments depend more on the opinion of Trump and Netanyahu than on the Iranian reality. The regime’s recent massacres had fallen into Western indifference. But the scale of the rebellion and the strength of the rejection of the ayatollahs have accelerated the final confrontation, changing the calculations of the ratios of forces on the ground.
(Corriere della Sera)