Tel Aviv and Washington are sharpening their knives – but military doctrine favors the first mover, and Tehran may be running out of time.
The Cradle
Rumors swirl around US President Donald Trump’s abrupt cancellation of new air strikes on Iran. What is undeniable is that the US military has few assets in the Persian Gulf. Trump has since ordered reinforcements.
Israel’s attempt to destabilize Iran from within has failed, but new pretexts for war are emerging. Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff recently communicated with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi during which he is said to have issued outrageous demands – terminate enrichment, handover enriched uranium, and reduce missile ranges and stockpiles – effectively, a demand for capitulation, which Washington knows Tehran will reject. The US will claim “Iran refuses to negotiate in good faith” as casus belli.
Pre-empt, or be punished
Iran’s military doctrine is fundamentally defensive; Israel’s is not. But that posture may be changing. In August 2025, retired Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) General Yahya Safavi, senior advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, declared: “We must adopt an offensive strategy.” In a January statement, Iran’s Defense Council said, “within the framework of legitimate defense, the Islamic Republic of Iran does not limit itself to reacting after action and considers objective signs of threat as part of the security equation.”
“Pre-emptive War” is to strike first to seize the initiative when confronting an imminent threat. The textbook study is Israel’s Six-Day War (1967), following the blockade of the Tiran Straits, the mobilization of Arab armies, and the hostile rhetoric.
“Preventive War,” however, is to counter a hazy threat: former US president George W. Bush’s 2003 Iraq War and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2025 Iran War are cases in point.
British strategist B.H. Liddell Hart said: “Strategy has not to overcome resistance [opponent’s tactics], except from nature. Its purpose is to diminish the possibility of resistance, and it seeks to fulfill this purpose by exploiting the elements of movement and surprise.”
In 1967, Tel Aviv did just that – obliterating air defenses before they launched and claiming vast swaths of land.
War has already begun
Iran faces an imminent threat. The 12-Day War in June made clear that the US and Israel are acting in tandem. Trump’s own admission confirmed that the Oman “negotiations” were a ruse to sedate Tehran.
The riots were not spontaneous. Israeli and western handlers coordinated operations across provinces, funneling cash, weapons, explosives, and Starlink terminals to operatives. Global media and online platforms amplified fabricated death tolls – 12,000 to 20,000 – to manufacture consent for foreign intervention.
The 12-Day War never ended, as Safavi shrewdly noted. The “riot phase” of the campaign is over, but a new phase is underway. The dilemma for Tehran is binary: should Iran absorb the first blow or strike the first blow?
A bid for survival
The threat is existential. The US and Israel do not seek only regime change, but the dismemberment of Iran along ethno-linguistic lines. Riots were intended to ignite civil war – like Syria and Libya – with Kurdish and Baluch separatists offered autonomous regions. If the Islamic Republic falls, the US will plunder the Iranian people’s oil and gas heritage, like with Venezuela.
For 47 years, Iran has endured sanctions, threats, saboteurs, agitators, and the western-backed Iran–Iraq War. In the past seven months, Iranians experienced war and riots instigated by the west. The anti-Iran media campaign grossly misrepresented the horrific crimes perpetrated against innocent Iranians, while portraying savage mobs as “peaceful protestors.”
The Islamic Republic is called “repressive,” “brutal theocracy,” “illegitimate,” “dictatorship,” and “rogue state.” It has never been treated the way despotic Persian Gulf monarchies, Egypt, and Jordan are treated.
The Iranian nation has never been allowed to function and develop like other nations. Negotiations are pointless. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was sabotaged by Tel Aviv – with help from former US president Barack Obama, who enticed Iran to sign the nuclear deal. “This nearly five-decades-long ‘horror film’ ends in one of two ways: Iran collapses, or the US-led bloc is defeated.”
Tehran’s turn to move
Israel never negotiates. It demands. It steals. It kills. Iran has negotiated endlessly – and received nothing. Perhaps it is time to act as Tel Aviv would.
Tehran may want to consider what Liddell Hart termed a “strategy of limited aim.” Here, the objective is not the defeat of the enemy – “unconditional surrender” – or capture of territory (Israel in 1967); but a war that coerces the enemy to sit at the negotiating table with Iran and treat the ancient Iranian nation as an equal.
Iran is disrespected by the US and its allies, just as Russia is disdained as a “gas station masquerading as a country.” Russia, despite its formidable military and nuclear arsenal, was never treated as a peer despite President Vladimir Putin’s good faith efforts to integrate with the US and EU economies.
Iran is experiencing the same contempt. Moreover, while Putin was negotiating on Ukraine and acceding to the Minsk Accords, NATO built Ukraine’s war machine. When Putin was asked if he had regrets about the Ukraine War, he replied, “[t]he only thing we can regret is that we did not take intense action earlier.”
After Russia’s Oreshnik retaliation, the same EU/NATO bloc that demanded Moscow’s defeat came crawling for negotiations. Power won them respect. Iran must do the same – humiliate its enemies, force negotiations, and dictate terms.
A negotiated treaty is not solely about lifting thousands of primary and secondary sanctions on the leadership and nation, and visa restrictions on Iranians, but permanently neutralizing the most treacherous elements of the Iranian diaspora.
Much of the diaspora remains politically disengaged, but major subsets have agitated against their countrymen for nearly five decades: demanding sanctions, engaging in sedition and terrorism, and fomenting war.
Pahlavists, MeK, Kurdish separatists (PJAK), and Baluch separatists (Jaish al-Adl) have caused immense harm to Iran and Iranians, stunted Iran’s economic growth, and besmirched its image globally. Foreign funding and support for terrorism and subversion can be eliminated with a comprehensive treaty.
Iran should demand the deportation to Iran of Maryam Rajavi and MeK members; defunding and disarmament of PJAK and Jaish al-Adl; and the defunding and de-licensing of propaganda outlets like Iran International and Manoto.
A hypothetical “new nuclear deal” will not deliver these benefits. They are not even discussed. Absent a treaty, propaganda will continue to spew and sully the Iranian nation, and MeK, PJAK, and Jaish will persist in harassing Tehran and killing Iranians.
Russia–China–Iran alliance
The above presupposes that Iran has plugged holes in its military architecture and continues to receive military support from Russia and China. In the 12-Day War, China furnished Iran with “Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance” (ISR) through its satellite network. Iran’s antiquated air force awaits deliveries of Su-35 fighter jets.
Iran needs both partners on board before it initiates a preemptive war. China and Russia have sound reasons to aid Iran, which sits at a geographically strategic point, and provides access to the Persian Gulf and neighboring states by rail.
China considers Iran integral to its regional and global strategies. If the US is humiliated in the Persian Gulf, Taiwan will not depend on a defeated US for its security. The US will continue its retreat to its own hemisphere, leaving the Persian Gulf and Indo-Pacific regions free to develop without US interference.
Russia, too, has scores to settle. US ISR and weapons have killed thousands of Russians in Ukraine. Even the strike targeting Putin’s residence bore Washington’s fingerprints.
Elena Panina of the Institute of International Political and Economic Strategies (IPES) said it plainly on Telegram in 2024: “The best option for Russia is to respond to America in a similar way: with a hybrid war far from its own borders. The most obvious at the moment is a proxy attack on American forces in the Middle East.” Will the Kremlin support Iran’s move?
The window is closing
A “lightning war” (blitzkrieg) is to swiftly neutralize critical naval and surface assets before they can be utilized against Iran, followed by a “war of attrition,” which the US and Israel cannot sustain. The 12-Day War proved that the enemy desires a brief war.
But this only works if Iran has a nuclear deterrent. Without it, victory is uncertain. Netanyahu is already unhinged. Trump, increasingly, appears mentally unstable.
If there is to be war – and it seems there will be – it must begin on Iran’s terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment