These events were not spontaneous. They fit the classic pattern of covert destabilisation operations, historically associated with the actions of the CIA and MOSSAD, as part of the hybrid war conducted against States that resist the imperialist and Zionist order.
It was in this artificially inflated environment that Donald Trump once again threatened a direct military attack by the United States against Iran. These threats, however, were nothing new, but rather the continuity of a strategy of multidimensional coercion, whose objective has remained the same for decades, with the intent of weakening Iran internally and dismantling its political sovereignty.
Economic warfare, sanctions, military intimidation, covert operations, information manipulation, diplomatic isolation, and political delegitimisation have been widely employed by the USA and Israel.
Almost all tools in the imperialist and Zionist arsenal have been used, with the exception of a large-scale invasion. What is observed today is not an effective strategy, but an escalation fuelled by frustration and the structural decline of US power.
Despite the intensity of this offensive, the central objective failed. Iran did not collapse. Its political system remains functional. Its strategic posture remains intact. Its institutions resisted. More than that, national sovereignty continues to be a factor of cohesion, even in the face of internal tensions. The so-called “regime change” through external coercion has proven politically unfeasible.
It is at this point that the retreat, albeit temporary, of the threat of direct attack is explained. It is not a matter of prudence or respect for international law. The decisive factor is different: a US attack on Iran would place the Zionist regime in the face of potentially catastrophic losses.
Recent experience has already made this evident. In the 12-day war in June 2025, the Iranian response deeply hit the occupied Palestinian territories, exposing the real limitations of Israeli anti-missile defence systems. Since then, Iran has made it clear that any new response will be superior in scope, intensity, and duration.
The central fact is simple and uncomfortable: Israel is not in a position to defend itself against a prolonged Iranian missile campaign. Systems such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow were designed for limited scenarios, not for massive, sustained attacks with continuous saturation.
In a new confrontation, urban centres, strategic infrastructure, military bases, and economic hubs would be directly exposed and would be destroyed.
In this scenario, the risk ceases to be merely military and takes on an existential character. An open conflict with Iran could shake the pillars of the Zionist project, whose survival depends on the perception of permanent military superiority and the ability to keep war away from its own territory. For the first time in an explicit way, the war would return to the heart of the occupation regime.
The USA understands this equation. Trump, whose political logic privileges quick and media-friendly strikes, shows no willingness to sustain a long, regionalised war with an unpredictable outcome. An initial attack could occur, but the Iranian response would drag the USA and Israel into a conflict out of control.
The postponement of the attack, therefore, does not represent an abandonment of the military option, but a tactical adjustment. Sanctions continue. Political pressure remains. The militarisation of the region intensifies. Covert operations continue as a privileged instrument of attrition.
The reality, however, is increasingly clear: imperialist coercion does not produce obedience. It produces resistance, escalation, and regional instability. The imperial power of the USA can impose suffering, but it cannot indefinitely subjugate a society whose legitimacy is founded on independence, resistance, and national dignity.
That is why the announced war did not happen. Not because of peace, but because of limits. For now.
No comments:
Post a Comment