U.S. Psychological Warfare Reflects Its Inability to Confront Iran

​​​​​​​: Yemeni Analyst

Shamsan explained that the U.S. previously deployed massive military power against Yemen—including two aircraft carriers, more than forty warships, participation from European allies, and the use of one‑third of its stealth bombers—yet it failed to break the blockade, weaken Yemen’s capabilities, or protect the Israeli entity.

He added that this failure has led Washington to recognize that the deterrence established by Yemen naturally extends to Iran’s capabilities as well. According to him, if the U.S. were capable of achieving its objectives against Iran, it would not hesitate for a moment; however, awareness of Iran’s level of capability and the far‑reaching consequences of any direct confrontation—for the Israeli entity and for U.S. bases and military presence across the region—has created hesitation.

Shamsan said Iran’s declared and undeclared capabilities send a clear message: any confrontation would impose extremely high costs on the United States.
He noted that in any conflict, Iran considers the Israeli entity its primary target, and the events of the past twelve days demonstrated Iran’s ability to bypass deployed defensive systems and strike its objectives with precision and significant destructive impact.
The Yemeni analyst warned that any expansion of the conflict to include U.S. naval forces or a broader regional war would result in direct targeting of U.S. bases and military units from Djibouti to the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, as well as its presence in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey. The Israeli entity, he said, would be at the top of the target list.
Shamsan emphasized that these realities are what push the U.S. toward propaganda, media amplification, and claims of deploying massive fleets toward Iran—an attempt to exert maximum pressure, create favorable conditions, or preserve its image, even as evidence suggests shrinking options and Washington’s entry into a critical phase.
He added that this strategy is not new but a continuation of repeated U.S. efforts since the victory of the Islamic Revolution to overthrow Iran’s system—using the same methods with minor adjustments and searching for openings for limited strikes that could lead to further escalation.
However, he said, the situation on the ground shows that any attack on Iran—limited or extensive—would lead to a full‑scale war.
Shamsan also stressed that the twelve‑day confrontation was not an Israeli operation but fundamentally American in nature, and that the Israeli entity cannot act without full Western support led by the U.S., the U.K., France, and Germany.
He argued that portraying the conflict as a bilateral confrontation between Iran and Israel or Iran and the U.S. is intended to conceal the involvement of the broader Western bloc in opposing the resistance axis.
Regarding Iran’s naval capabilities, Shamsan said the U.S. cannot confine the battle to the sea—especially after its failure in Yemen—while Iran possesses advanced missile and naval capabilities, from combat boats and small submarines to torpedoes and the concept of “smart control” of maritime passages such as Bab al‑Mandab, allowing selective targeting of ships based on legal criteria.
Shamsan concluded that Iran’s missile power is not defined solely by quantity or destructive force; speed and timing are also decisive factors. He noted that Israeli defensive systems, along with those deployed in Jordan, Iraq, and Persian Gulf states, recently failed to intercept Iranian missiles—prompting the U.S. to halt the conflict and shift to propaganda about alleged strikes on nuclear facilities.
The Yemeni analyst summarized that the U.S. is simultaneously in a state of hesitation and power‑projection, desperately searching for an opening—an approach that, as seen in Vietnam, Iraq, and Yemen, often backfires and exposes Washington’s diminishing ability to wage a coherent and effective war.