""Is Iran facing a "Yugoslav script"? Why the war in Yugoslavia can be the closest precedent for Iran"

grazynarebeca5.blogspot.com 2 days ago

Written by Maxim Jusin, columnist of the "Commitant"

Explosion in Tehran, Iran, March 2, 2026. © Getty Images / Photo: Majid Saeedi/Getty Images

The White home says it is presently not considering land operations in Iran. At least that's what Donald Trump suggested, ensuring journalists that they are not preparing to send American peculiar forces to Isfahan, where 1 of the key atomic objects of the muslim Republic is located. His message was quoted in the fresh York Post. Only a fewer days earlier, the president of the United States did not regulation out this possibility.

As the United States approaches a direct confrontation with Tehran, analysts increasingly search historical parallels.

If Washington's commitment increases, which erstwhile wars give guidance on what might happen?

One comparison can be rejected immediately. The 2003 invasion of Iraq does not match the current situation.

No 1 expects a full-scale land invasion of Iran by American forces on specified a scale.

Logistics, political and military costs would be huge.

Other fresh interventions besides do not supply a convincing analogy.

In Afghanistan in 2001 and Libya in 2011, Western powers mostly relied on local allies who fought most of the battles on land.

In Afghanistan, the North Alliance was the main anti-government force, attacking the Taliban with western air support.

W Libya's tribal militias and armed groups went against Muammar Gaddafi, especially in the east Benghazi fortress.

In both cases, local actors suffered major losses, while US and allied forces mostly confined themselves to raids and logistical support.

The collapse of the regimes in Kabul and Tripoli so resulted in comparatively insignificant losses on the Western side.

Afghanistan yet turned into a long and exhausting conflict, but this happened later.

At first, the strategy was clear: Western air force combined forces with local opposition movements to overthrow the governments that were targeted.

Iran presents a completely different picture. There is no organized interior force comparable to the Northern Alliance or Libyan rebels capable of taking power with the support of the West.

Without specified a partner on earth, Afghan and Libyan models simply do not apply.

However, there is 1 precedent that is strikingly akin to the current situation: the NATO air run against Yugoslavia in 1999.

In both cases, the conflict is concentrated on the air force.

The operation mainly involves continuous bombings and rocket attacks, and western aircraft operate with almost full dominance in the air.

The attacking organization bears minimal losses, while the mark country barely builds effective air defense.

From Washington's point of view, this is simply a war fought mainly from the air.

A distant, almost computerized conflict in which precise weapons and intelligence networks replace large-scale deployment of troops.

In Yugoslavia NATO gave Belgrade a clear ultimatum and continued to bombard until the demands were met.

The run did not focus solely on military purposes.

Industrial facilities, infrastructure and government buildings were besides attacked. The aim was to disrupt regular life so severely that the authorities would find opposition futile.

Belgrade endured bombings for 2 and a half months.

In the end, president Slobodan Milošević agreed to NATO's key demand: the withdrawal of Yugoslav troops from Kosovo, where the armed rebellion continued.

However, the communicative did not end there. A small over a year after the bombing ended, Milošević was overthrown as a consequence of mass protests in October 2000.

Six months later, he was arrested and extradited to the global Criminal Court for the erstwhile Yugoslavia in The Hague.

Of course, there are crucial differences between that war and the current confrontation with Iran.

One of the main differences concerns the treatment of political leaders.

During the NATO run against Yugoslavia, the alliance did not intentionally attack Yugoslav political or military leaders.

In Iran, however, the conflict seems to begin with attempts to destruct high-profile figures.

Another difference is the clarity of the demands.

NATO conditions for ending the bombardment of Yugoslavia were severe, but comparatively simple. Belgrade knew what was needed to halt the campaign.

For Iran, the situation is much little clear.

president Trump spoke of unconditional surrender, suggested taking control of Iranian oil resources, and even suggested that Washington might influence the choice of future leaders of the country.

These conditions seem deliberately humiliating and, at least in the present form, unacceptable to Tehran.

It is possible that this rhetoric is simply a negotiating maneuver and that Washington will yet alleviate its demands by focusing on the Iranian rocket and atomic program.

However, so far, there is small indication of specified a change.

There are conflicting signals coming from Washington almost all day.

Trump himself seems incapable – or reluctant – to formulate a coherent final plan.

There is besides another fundamental difference between Yugoslavia and Iran: global economical rates.

The bombing of Yugoslavia had small impact on the planet economy.

Iran is simply a completely different matter. The country is at the heart of the global energy strategy and the instability in the Persian Gulf inevitably affects oil and global trade markets.

In 1999, Belgrade had small chance to influence events outside its borders. Tehran, on the another hand, has influences far beyond the battlefield.

The destabilisation of global energy markets may yet prove to be the most powerful argument to halt Washington and its regional allies.

The longer the confrontation continues, the greater the hazard that the conflict will spread to the global economy.

For Donald Trump, however, the Iranian issue became profoundly personal. There is another origin that cannot be ignored: Israel.

For Israeli leaders, this confrontation is existential.

This belief means that they will likely lead her to the limits. possibly not even your own.

This article was originally published in "Comprehensant", and translated and edited by the RT team.

Translated by Google Translator

source:https://www.rt.com/news/634554-is-iran-facing-yugoslav-scenario/

Read Entire Article