Trump seizes on ...
Page 1
Broad, unilateral sanctions have played a major role in exacerbating Iran’s economic crisis, inflation, and livelihood pressures. Trump agreed to Israel’s aggression on Iran that resulted in the killing of more than a thousand innocent Iranians, including women and children. In this context, his threat does not reflect a genuine commitment to supporting the Iranian people, but rather the continuation of a hostile political approach aimed at ramping up a war-like situation and imposing heavy costs on Iranian civilians.
It is inevitably innocent Iranians who would become the victims of any war. References to concepts such as “humanitarian intervention” or “responsibility to protect” (R2P) cannot legally justify such threats. The United States’ behavioral pattern, particularly since 2001, has consistently shown that it treats international law not as a binding norm, but as a selective instrument of power.
What tools and strategies does Iran possess to deter such threats?
Iran’s strategy is built on a multilayered, intelligent, and dynamic deterrence architecture. On the military level, Iran possesses a range of conventional capabilities that are defensive and deterrent in nature rather than offensive. Indigenous precision missile capabilities, a multi-tiered air defense network, asymmetric naval capacities in southern waters, the Strait of Hormuz, and the open seas, alongside regional strategic depth, have significantly diversified and enhanced Iran’s ability to deliver a hard and unpredictable response to the United States.
Political and societal deterrence also plays a decisive role. Iran’s discourse of resistance against US unilateralism carries significant symbolic weight both regionally and globally. Public opinion in large parts of the world views Iran not as the instigator of crises, but as a country defending its independence against US hegemonic bullying and Israeli expansionism. As a result, public support for Iran is increasing, while the standing of the United States in global public opinion has sharply declined and aversion to Israel has intensified.
In the event of direct US intervention, what capacities does Iran have to respond militarily, politically, and diplomatically?
Based on the experience of the 12-day war, Iran has now prepared itself for a range of diverse, scenarios. The continuation of hostile US–Zionist actions appears to have convinced Tehran that, should a war scenario be repeated, a more regret-inducing response would be delivered. Politically, Iran remains committed to the security of regional countries, but it must be noted that states hosting US military bases would, in effect, be accomplices in any war. At the same time, the 12-day war demonstrated Iran’s strong capacity to mobilize domestic and regional public opinion and to prove the issue as an anti-imperialist struggle. While this may yield limited short-term gains, diplomatically Iran would also activate international legal mechanisms, line up support from independent powers, and increase political pressure on the United States in international bodies, including the UN Security Council and regional forums. Collectively, these responses are designed to raise Washington’s strategic costs and erode US legitimacy.
What consequences would such a confrontation have for the Middle East, and which countries would be most affected?
The launch of a US-led war against Iran would have wide-ranging regional and extra-regional consequences. The Middle East — and indeed the world — would not return to the status quo. More countries in the region have come to realize that the United States is not committed to their security and are increasingly concerned about Washington’s next hostile moves. In such a war, countries hosting US forces or located in Iran’s immediate neighborhood would be the most vulnerable. Heightened regional instability, disruptions to energy routes, threats to maritime security, and intensified geopolitical rivalries would be among the immediate consequences of a serious, US-imposed war against Iran.
It must be emphasized, however, that Israel would suffer the greatest damage in any new conflict and would pay a heavy price. Overall, such a confrontation would benefit no regional actor and could plunge the Middle East into a new cycle of structural insecurity, the containment of which would be extremely costly for all involved.