Before we get into the nitty-gritty, one thing should be said. Most people tend to always jump immediately into extremes when making predictions: either Iran will completely humiliate and destroy the US forces, sinking every aircraft carrier; or the US will totally level Iran, slaughter the entire leadership, and establish an Iraq-like dominion over the entire country.
In reality, when we analyze historical precedent we can see that neither often happens. Most commonly the case is that neither side commits fully, and a lot of messy, ambiguous damage is done from which both sides emerge as self-proclaimed victors. Trump prefers things "easy" and is likely to pull out of any kinetic conflict as soon as he's able to grab that one shiny PR motif that gets him his victory laurels. For instance, should he succeed in taking out the Ayatollah or other senior leadership, he could immediately declare a win and wind down hostilities.
This is likely the main reason behind Trump's refusal to even name objectives for the brewing conflict: there are no real pre-determined objectives, he's intent on achieving anything at all that has the cachet of success so he can retroactively label it as the objective he had all along. This allows him to again annoint himself a "genius" for having achieved what he wanted. Should Iran's leadership prove too difficult to root out, Trump may simply wait until the US hits some other juicy military targets which can be glamorously emphasized on TV, then declare those as having been the objectives all along, again touting victory and that "Iran's nuclear potential has been destroyed".
We know that Trump's real motivation for the Iran strikes is not US's own intelligence regarding some nonexistent Iranian potential, but rather the pressure from Israel. That means for Trump the main operative goal is to somehow satisfy his Israeli superiors and relieve the pressure, rather than achieving any one particular military objective. As long as he can give them a good "college try" and prove his loyalty with a thrashing of Iran, he may deem his debt paid and pull the plug. Israel, of course, will never be fully satisfied until Iran is entirely destroyed, but this is simply how the game works: Trump relieves pressure by striking Iran even if it doesn't entirely satisfy Netanyahu. After some kinetic fanfare, Israel is left with less credible leverage of its own, particularly when Trump is able to twist headlines to "prove" how far his "devastating" strikes were able to set Iran back, which Israel would then be unable to credibly gainsay without directly challenging his narrative.
It should also be noted that some are convinced Tucker Carlson has just single-handedly saved Iran from destruction by outing Israel's true plans in his interview with ultra-Zionist Mike Huckabee, US's ambassador to Israel. Recall that Carlson was detained in Israel in quite unfriendly fashion as he's been internally deemed a kind of enemy of the state for exposing Israel's propaganda:
...
In the interview, Huckabee implied to Carlson his belief that Israel is entitled to conquer the entire Middle East, as per its biblically chosen stature.
This sent a firestorm of outrage throughout the Middle East, with the ministries of every major country writing an 'open letter' of protest:
Cont'd ...
Re: Simplicius: The Strategic Dilemma At the Heart of Iran's Struggle
Good stuff from Simplicius, the most astute analysis of the psychology of the situation I've seen. Iran may have legal justification for a pre-emptive strike against the forces being built up against it, but they will be hampered by a perceived need to live up to their morality and being seen to be in the right by international bodies like the UN (as defanged and irrelevant as they have become). So they go through the charade of negotiations because they feel they have to tick that box, even though the US has completely disregarded diplomacy when in its interests to do so, indeed using it as a cover for treachery.
Comments are interesting. I found myself in agreement with this one by Eric Basciano:
'While Iran may be legally entitled to strike first in the face of an imminent threat from the US and Israel, they would be wiser to wait until the US planes are in the air. With the new Chinese long range radar and their connection to the Beidoo satellite system Iran will have plenty of warning and a reasonable chance of surviving, and maybe even blunting, a first strike. In the eyes of most of the world Iran's retaliatory actions will then be justified, and these actions should be severe including attacks on US naval assets.'
That and with the comments arguing for a pre-emptive blockade of Hormuz. Though the consequences might be too damaging for Iran itself for that to be a viable first move. Many/most of the other countries that would be hurt probably deserve it, though as ever it will be regular people who suffer most... Either way we should really be out in the streets to try and stop this from happening in the first place.
"While Iran may be legally entitled to strike first in the face of an imminent threat from the US and Israel, they would be wiser to wait until the US planes are in the air..."
Seems sound advice, but the differential in speed between what will be thrown at Iran and what can be launched by the Iranians in reply is I understand exponential.
The Iranians can be hitting targets before the initial Yanqui Israeli offensive even lands...
Which means positively that allowing the Yanquis / Israeli to launch first merely confers a minimum disadvantage and more negatively that the media can fudge the whole issues of launch & hit to still blame Iran for initiating the war.
nmThe last working-class hero in England. Clio the cat, ? July 1997 - 1 May 2016 Kira the cat, ? ? 2010 - 3 August 2018 Jasper the Ruffian cat ??? - 4 November 2021 Georgina the cat ???-4 December 2025
Re: Simplicius: The Strategic Dilemma At the Heart of Iran's Struggle
Probably true that they would blame Iran even if they (ie: US/israel) shot first as you describe, but at least it gives them deniability for those willing to actually look at the facts. But Iran will be blamed even if they sit there and take their punishment without any response at all. Acting out of deference to intl. law and 'norms' while the hegemon violates them at will with complete impunity is a mug's game. Anyone serious about resistance has to learn how to step outside of that frame of Acceptable behaviour and start creating their own destiny. 'When the oppressor gives me two choices I always take the third' as the saying goes (blanking on the name of the concentration camp inmate who said this, before eventually stabbing an SS officer to death).
on February 23, 2026, 2:01 pm