Israeli-Iranian conflict – first week

Israeli-Iranian conflict – first week

During his election campaign, Trump promised not to wage more wars. However, he succumbed to the voices of Zionists from Israel, attacking another independent country, for the Jews could not cope with it in a 1 in 1 fight.

What do we know?

1. Donald Trump publically and thus officially appointed deadline (final deadline) for Iran's negotiations – 14 days. Implicite After this date, the US may strike Iran: around 4 July, or the 249th anniversary of the declaration of independency by the United States of America. It's 1 of the biggest holidays, the alleged civic religion. civil religion In Uncle Sam's country. This is how I predicted on Saturday, June 21, although the next day, which means Sunday, we know that there was an attack at night, most likely B-2 bombers, on 3 atomic centers: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The action, according to the Americans, was to end with the success and complete demolition of these facilities.

2. The media reports, however, that Iran was expected to evacuate most of the personnel, as well as uranium enrichment infrastructure, outside the aforementioned locations.
3. It is already known (by consequence – message of the actual ultimate leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Chamenei) that Iran will not negociate until Israel attacks it. It is now known that negotiations will be virtually impossible in the close future after the US attack, and the government already announces, here I quote: "eternal consequences", "any defence options" and that "America is simply a legitimate objective".
4. Axiomat in the government policy of Prime Minister Binjamin Netanyahu is that raids will proceed "as long as needed". IDF besides announced that the run could take a long time. Why is that? There are 2 conclusions: A. Israel inactive has an advantage in the air over Iran, and for now, at least according to its own propaganda, wins this duel; B. has the advantage thanks, among others, to the Americans (equipment, arms and political support), as well as to the mostly understood Western planet (more or less) and unofficially, as I have already treated in my first analysis, thanks to the silent (inconceivable) approval of any of the arabian states, which, by their dissertation with erstwhile Persia and present-day Iran, deal with Israelis' hands.
5. Americans, by their nature, are not only individualists but pragmatists. They go where they have business, and the bigger, the better. They are looking for ways to accomplish the best possible goals (praxeology), without involving large forces and resources. Pragmatism refers to a realistic and rational approach to reality, which involves taking actions that warrant effectiveness and achieving the desired results. There may be 2 issues that are pragmatic: A. the emphasis on Iran by bombing, the firing of strategical objects (in principle: “See, and you could avoid it by negotiating with us earlier erstwhile the time was right, but now what has happened is the consequence of your deficiency of serious approach to the negotiations. See, this is not the end, and something much worse could happen to you" – that is what the American side was going to argue about with Iran after the Israeli action, or military pressure; B., you inactive have time (two weeks) to approach the negotiating table until (like a merciful father, Donald Trump) has closed the door of diplomacy, or diplomatic pressure. Both actually, i.e. military and diplomatic, are of a intellectual nature. That's how I analysed yesterday, June 21. present we already know, and we are definitely certain that it was all a smokescreen and a US game to confuse Tehran, to lull his vigilance (although I uncertainty that the Americans succeeded to the end, as the Iranians were not naive and expected attacks, so they most likely moved any of the infrastructure, hid it in little accessible places. Here, however, the question arises whether Mossad and the CIA have cognition of it and, if so, how rich it is). Now, you can anticipate anything from Donald Trump. It is very hard to foretell his behaviour, but 1 thing is certain erstwhile he talks about negotiations and peace, he will think "military attack", due to the fact that this is how reality can be interpreted after the fresh actions of the Washington administration.

6. Americans mostly under the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan have a very good memory and do not want to engage in another much more serious and costly conflict in Iran, while losing their people (especially under Trump's paleoconservative regime). Trump himself is not George W. Bush in version 2.0. In fact, they are both Republicans, although their ideology divides them. I mean, Bush was a neoconservative president (hence the war in Afghanistan and Iraq – neoconservative ideology assumes to spread democracy in the world, to lead it even by force, that is, by any kind of imperialism). Trump, as I mentioned above, is simply a paleoconservativeist, or at least closest to it. This is evidenced by the reluctance to engage militarily in the world, to focus on our own American backyard, where there are no problems; any kind of isolationism, and thus the other of imperialism. But here I will mention 2 ways of implementing American abroad policy: A. hard power – “spreading democracy” militarily in the planet of Western civilization; B. soft power – peaceful spread in the planet of what is western (preferably American, e.g. through pop culture or macdonaldisation). For Donald Trump, if any, I think option B is the best possible (and cheapest). Today, however, we see that it is hard to delegate it to any current in American politics. He goes beyond the scheme, creates his own doctrine and politics not within the framework of worn-out currents. At least for the time being, the Americans have completed action on 3 atomic centres, but it is not excluded, and it is highly likely that further attacks will happen soon. However, returning to the Americans themselves and their negative experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, Trump's actions, which assured peace, repeated so many times America First, expressed an isolationist approach, abruptly engaged in the Israeli-Iran war – this event is most likely a large shock for them. any of the public supported him in the election due to his peaceful slogans. Now Trump may lose a lot among his own voters, and there may besides be rebellion within his administration (this is likely, although I believe not yet at this stage). Will there be public opposition in American society? I don't think so, though I foretell that a wave of anti-war protests will pass through there. During his election campaign, Trump promised not to wage more wars. However, he succumbed to the voices of Zionists from Israel, attacking another independent country, for the Jews could not cope with it in a 1 in 1 fight.
7. Recently, 1 of the British “Guardian” publications reported that the American president was considering joining the conflict only erstwhile it would bring real but measurable benefits. For example, by destroying atomic plants in the Iranian Ford, alleged deep-sea or bunker bombs. Bunker Buster Bombs), e.g. GBU-57, 13.6-ton (30 000 pounds). However, according to any American experts, the GBU-57's effectiveness has been the subject of a deep dispute at the Pentagon since Trump's word began. According to 2 defence officials, possibly only tactical atomic weapons could destruct the Fords due to how deep it is. The “Guardian” publication was nervously responded by the Russians, who, by the mouth of Kremlin spokesperson Dmitri Pieskov, ruled that any usage of tactical atomic weapons by the US in Iran would be disastrous not only for Iran itself, but for the full mediate East, Europe and the world. According to another British press, The economical Times, neither Trump nor defence Secretary Pete Hegseth consider utilizing atomic weapons against Tehran. In my opinion, the usage of specified weapons (mass destruction) is not in the interest of the US, as it would open the proverbial "Pandora can". Then, even if the Russians could usage specified a weapon without any uncertainty in Ukraine, and possibly in the future China against Taiwan (although it is simply a pure division, due to the fact that I personally believe that Russia against Ukraine and China towards Taiwan have much more means of pressure, including military, than the final atomic exit). That's how I analyzed yesterday. In fact, the Americans felt that joining the conflict would indeed be measurable. According to the press reports of the fresh York Times, definitive impacts occurred using, by me, the mentioned stealth B-2 bombers, which were to drop six 13-ton ILO penetration bombs. Massive Ordnance Penetrators) — GBU-57 which nota bene are the largest non-atomic bombs in the US arsenal – it's for a facility in Fordow. Fox News, on the another hand, reports that 30 Tomahawk maneuvering missiles were utilized in attacks against another centers.
8. The Americans say by D. Trump that they know where the highest leader of Iran, Chamenei, is hiding, but "they do not want to neutralize it for now". 1 of Iran's closest allies, Russia, reacted negatively to this news. Mr. Pieskov one more time expressed that any external interference in the change of government in Iran is unacceptable to Russia and will be very badly received in Moscow, which will besides constitute a gross escalation and beginning of Pandora's box (probably he meant the fear of trying to change the government in his own country), according to "Sky News".
9. In my opinion, killing Ayatollah Chamenei will not bring anything fresh and good about the subject. For Israel, it will only be symbolic, and in Iran itself it can have the other effect. alternatively of affirmative (positive) feedback, negative (negative) feedback may occur. I'm explaining what this is all about. The theoretically killing of the leader of the muslim Republic, which no uncertainty for the Iranian Shiites, which are the vast majority of Iran, al Chamenei, could besides give emergence to fuel to change the regime, as a consequence of the regulation, stabilisation and adaptation of Iranians to the fresh reality (positive feedback). Although something completely other may occur, i.e. radicalisation of society, an increase in the level of aggression and hatred towards the collective West, and surely the US and Israel, and the choice of a fresh ultimate leader, i.e. regulation, stabilisation and adaptation of Iranians to the fresh situation (negative feedback). In conclusion, feedback is simply a fundamental mechanics which plays a key function in many areas, allowing stability, regulation and adaptation (on 1 side or the other, as described above). Thus, the killing of Ayatollah Chamenei as the starting point of feedback can consequence in either a negative or a affirmative effect. Of course, it besides depends on the point of view, for whom the first effect will be, and for whom the second. What for Americans and Israelis could be, for example, a affirmative feedback, for Russia, China, the Ayatollah government may be a negative feedback, and vice versa.
10. There has been a fresh subject of change of power in Iran. However, the question should be raised here – on what? Who would decide that – the large powers or possibly the Iranians themselves? In fresh days, despite the ongoing exchange of punches, the 9-million-dollar Tehran, among others, has undergone powerful, respective 100 thousand-thousand demonstrations of support for the authorities of the muslim republic. Thus Netanjah's earlier appeals to the Iranian people to take matters into his own hands and to settle, to overthrow, to change the regime, to fail. The effects of Israeli attacks are rather different from those expected by Tel Aviv. For there was counted as a bottom-up revolt, a revolution that would wipe the Shiite Ayatollahs off the face of the earth (at least this Iranian one). Today, however, it turns out that the government has more supporters than opponents in society, and nothing unifies the nation as much as the war or its ghost. Even the boy of the last Shah of Iran spoke of the shaky positions, the foundations of the Tehran government (nota bene overthrown by the people in 1979), Prince Reza Pahlavi, who besides called for the nation to appear against the tyranny of the Ayatollahs. Is he to return to the Persian throne? He would gotta have the support of the Iranians themselves so that the Americans could install it in Tehran after a possible revolution. Many people no longer remember life before the 1979 Revolution. Those who were born after this caesura only know Iran of the muslim Republic. The next in line, not necessarily desired by the West to take the lead of power, are left-wing (not Marxist) mujahedinis fighting against the "unbelievers" and little literally—with the occupiers or unacceptable by themselves. This group is the main force behind the National Council of opposition of Iran, headed by Maryam Rajawi, who is active in many Western countries. Kurdish and Bedouin Muslims, mostly Sunnic, frequently opposed the Persian-speaking, Shiite government in Tehran. respective Kurdish groups have long held opposition to the muslim Republic in the western parts of the country, where they make up the majority and have had periods of active rebellion against government forces. In Balochistan, along the Iranian border with Pakistan, opposition to Tehran includes Sunni clergy supporters who want to cut more space for their supporters in the muslim Republic, but besides armed jihadists associated with Al-Qaeda. As large protests spread across the country. They were frequently the most fierce in the Kurdish and Beludzian areas, but there is no single united opposition movement in any of the regions that would pose a clear threat to Tehran's rule. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets in mass protests in the following points for decades. Following the 2009 presidential election, demonstrators filled Tehran and another cities, accusing the authorities of falsifying the vote on Mahmud Ahmadinejad in office against rival Mir Hossein Musawa. Musawi's “Green Movement” was crushed and he himself was arrested at home, along with his political ally and erstwhile Parliament president Mehdi Karubim. The movement, which has pursued democratic reforms within the existing muslim republic system, is now widely considered dead. In 2022 Iran re-entered large protests around women's rights. Demonstrations under the slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom” lasted for months, but did not lead to the formation of an organization or bring in Many protesters were yet arrested and imprisoned, as reported by “Reuters”. To conclude, in my opinion, the Iranians are besides a divided nation, but war can unite them around the current regime. There is specified a possibility, and it is actually already appearing. Therefore, it is hard to correctly choose what can come of the future in Iran after the possible removal from the Shiite Ayatollah rule. What kind of post-strepid Iran would it be? We don't know that, at least for now.
11. On both sides of the conflict there is strong propaganda. The Israelis do not inform the planet of the details of the losses on their own side, but they are eager to talk about the blows to Iran. Tehran in turn cuts off (or at least mostly limits) The net to its citizens, so that information from a planet another than what the government itself presents, cannot scope them. Censorship is valid on both sides of the barricade. There is an ongoing information and intellectual war, accompanied by falling bombs, rockets and many casualties, both Israeli and Iranian. For example, Israel reports that their opponent attacked their infirmary (one of the largest) in Beer-Sheba. In turn, they are silent about the successful attack by the Iranian forces on the office of Mossad and the manager of Military Intelligence (AMAN) and the summertime residence of Prime Minister Netanyahu in Cezarya Nadmorska – this happened on October 22, 2024 – by a charge dropped off the Hezbollah drone (Polish media strangely silent about it).
12. Recently, news reports about Israel’s weapons previously received from the American protector have been released. If that's true, I wouldn't be entirely inclined to believe it. surely no one, but the United States will not let Israel to stay defenseless.
13. There is besides news that Israel's air defence strategy is already on the verge of exhaustion of its capabilities, hence it is passing more Iranian missiles. However, the fact may be completely different. There is besides information that Iran has begun utilizing hypersonic weapons that scope a staggering velocity of up to 1500 km/h (i.e. capable of hitting the State of Israel within 3 minutes). The Iron Dome is most likely incapable to capture specified weapons.
14. Donald Trump's call to evacuate Tehran is nothing else, in my opinion, like intellectual force on the government and the people there. The capital of each country demonstrates the strength and prestige of the country. Hitting the heart, or capital, is always the biggest blow. Of course, from a logistics point of view, it would be hard to evacuate all of Tehran. Where would these people go? The population of Iran is about 90 million people, the capital being 10% of the population of the country. However, it is impossible to just relocate 9 million people. Remember, specified appeals are besides part of the intellectual warfare campaign. On the another hand, after the United States' nightly engagement in the war, it is hard to measure whether it is just Trump's bogeyman or whether there will actually be massive raids and attacks on the capital of the Ayatollahs if the Tehran government does not bow down.
15. Impacts on both sides happen fundamentally in waves, nights. Of course, the exchange of fire takes place on a much smaller scale. A akin phenomenon occurs in the Russian-Ukrainian War.
16. The preparations for the US attack on Iran may have been as follows in fresh days: A. moving U.S. aircraft from mediate East bases to more distant locations; B. to decision additional support forces in the form of bombers or aircraft carriers in or close the Gulf (so that Iran is in their field of destruction); C. further evacuation of unnecessary civilian personnel from the embassies or military bases of the mediate East, evacuation of citizens (it is said that those – including those who besides have dual citizenship – are to be present in Israel alone about 700 thousand) - I had already predicted yesterday and it turns out to be hit.
17. Iran announced withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of atomic Weapons (NPT). The non-proliferation of BMR (weapon of mass destruction), including the acquisition of technology for its production, characterises this system. Now, after the American attacks, Iran can search atomic weapons from strategical partners.
18. It should be stressed that China and Russia, as well as Pakistan, will not wait long to respond to the US attacks. Eventually, they will likely besides enter the theatre of war straight or indirectly, delivering weapons to an attacked ally. Otherwise, their credibility will fall into ruins and show fear of American superpowers, which, in my opinion, Beijing and Moscow will surely not let themselves. It is already known that Iran's head of MFA Abbas Aragchi has announced that he is urgently going to Moscow, where he will have a "serious consultation with Putin" on Monday. It should be stressed that Iran has a strategical partnership with Russia," he added. It is most likely about the support of Tehran by Moscow in the military field of arms shipments, as Iran supported Russia with supplies even of Shahed 136 drones in her war struggles with Ukraine.
19. Any further attacks on Iran may have the other effect. Iran may search to get atomic weapons, but not so much by its own forces, but by 1 of its partners, justifying this "unprovoked aggression of the Zionist government in Tel Aviv". All the more so, the usage of tactical atomic weapons to destruct the Iranian underground atomic investigation complex in Fordow will become an indispensable argument for the Iranians to get in 1 way or another a deterrent atomic warhead (now we know that the usage of atomic weapons in Iran has not been fortunately achieved, which does not mean that this option has not been considered).
20. The UN has become disabled, something that can be described as a "geriatrics club". The organization, which was to uphold peace and global order, one more time fails to cope with further escalations 1 by one. Personally, I have the impression that an esteemed United Nations State is gathering there to talk, sometimes to argue, to vote on this or any another resolution, without any translation into reality. This is due to the fact that erstwhile the UN required reform, it was not undertaken. And now we have the results. Another consequence is that, in fact, the safety Council of the United States, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom is able to take unanimous binding decisions and, as is widely known, this unanimity is lacking (here, for example, Russia and China are allies of Iran). In addition, the world's perception, the division of the globe into spheres of influence is not insignificant. Washington sees the land in a unilatual shape, and Russia and China and the countries around BRICS aspire to multilateral (pluralistic) reality. In fact, the current UN is dead and helpless, as with the Moscow – Kiev conflict, so to talk the most fresh line on the Tel Aviv – Tehran line.
21. Why specified boundless support of the United States for Israel? The subject deserves a separate analysis, although I urge 2 readings known in the circles of discipline about global relations, 1 of the SM theorists, John Mearsheimer (some who service – judaic origin) – "Israeli Lobby in the USA" from 2011 and a newer position "Israeli lobby and US abroad policy" from 2022. Mearsheimer himself is an American polytologist, creator of offensive realism theory, lecturer in political discipline at the University of Chicago.

Bottom line. In my opinion, the entry of Americans into the mediate East theatre, which has already happened, will not end just on what we witnessed last night. Although Donald Trump is simply a circumstantial president – explosive and frantic, he cannot be accused of being rational, realistic and pragmatic. The US will make a decision erstwhile it is safe for them (after possible evacuation, securing and arming their bases, aircraft carriers or any another presence in Iran's field of destruction, which has already been made), as well as profitable (it will bring tangible benefits for a very long time, preferably permanently). Until yesterday, it seemed that a U.S. military action was the White House's bluff to force Iran to compromise and negotiate. However, possibly the Americans will proceed to supply arms to Israel, but with more passion and calibre, only indirectly participating in the war and stopping yet only on last night's action. In turn, if the Ayatollah government pressed against the wall sits at the negotiating table, it is not certain that Israel will halt bombing Iran. As I have already written in my last week's analysis, Tel Aviv's main goal is to change the government in Tehran to at least neutral and very optimistic variant – friendly towards the State of Israel, the US and mostly Western. What happens is they show up next week and month.

Piotr Żak, analyst and global expert, global scientist and American