A Gauntlet Thrown for Leadership: The War in Iran

Why was such a strong strike against Iran carried out именно now, and why is capitulation being demanded? In principle, this could have been done earlier. Iran has never represented a sufficiently significant military force for Washington to hesitate to take such a step.

Expert opinions portraying Iran as an ancient civilization mastering diplomacy, depicting its army as fanatical and dangerous to confront, and claiming that the destruction of Iran would lead to chaos in the region were promoted for the general public. In reality, informed observers knew that Iran is a colossus with feet of clay.

Americans are masters at using defeat to their advantage. When the pro-U.S. government of the Shah collapsed and was replaced by the clerical regime, the Americans understood that it could be useful for the geopolitical strategy that Washington promotes in the region. Iran, with its aggressive policy of creating a “Shiite arc” from Lebanon to Yemen, posed a serious threat to neighboring states. As a result, a need emerged for a security umbrella for nearby wealthy Arab monarchies. This strengthened U.S. influence in the region and deepened dependence on Washington. From this, the Americans derived significant advantages.

Moreover, Iran failed to build a competitive model of political system, economy, and military—not only in comparison with the United States but also with neighboring countries. GDP per capita in Iran is about 4,800 dollars. This is lower than in the countries of the South Caucasus, not to mention the wealthy Arab states of the Gulf. The United States understood that this country had no real prospects. Therefore, it remained calm and did not take any serious steps, keeping Iran in a sanctions stranglehold.

But today the situation has fundamentally changed. China, Iran, and Russia, together with other BRICS countries, have begun to build configurations that pose a threat to U.S. global leadership. China’s growing activity has become irritating not only in nearby regions but also in other sensitive zones for the United States, such as Latin America, which Washington considers its sphere of influence. This became particularly evident after the start of the war in Ukraine. China and Iran actively supported Russia in the war against Ukraine, which was backed by the United States.

The Americans failed to break the close relationship between Russia and China through diplomatic means. They then resorted to forceful measures to weaken them. They began with Panama, forcing the rejection of services from a Chinese company that managed the Panama Canal. Then the president of Venezuela, Maduro, was arrested. After that, Venezuelan oil—whose main buyer was China—came under U.S. control. Then it was time to remove Iran from this triangle. By dismantling Iran, they are breaking this triangle, significantly weakening both Russia and China.

This is also understood in the Kremlin. Russian experts have begun openly stating that the United States is not interested in peace and seeks to exhaust Russia. Another expert even said it would have been better if the shooter had not missed by a few millimeters when attempting to assassinate Donald Trump. It is believed that Russia made a mistake in agreeing to U.S. mediation—its long-standing adversary. The United States is once again becoming an enemy for Moscow. Developments along this trajectory are seen as beneficial for all. In such a scenario, the United States will be forced to consolidate efforts with its allies and seriously confront the Kremlin, potentially leading to its defeat.

The military operation “Epic Fury” dealt a significant blow to China’s reputation. China had been perceived as one of the poles of global geopolitics, capable of standing on equal footing with the United States. After all, it is the world’s second-largest economy, a nuclear power that regularly демонстрирует its military achievements. It has engaged in trade wars with Washington and repeatedly declared that it would soon be able to reunify Taiwan by force, with no one able to stop it.

Some countries concluded strategic partnership agreements with China in the hope of relying on Beijing in difficult times. Iran had such an agreement for 25 years. China was expected to invest 400 billion dollars in Iran in exchange for cheap oil.

However, when the moment came to defend its interests, China failed to show initiative or activity. It should be noted that Iranian oil supplies account for about 13 percent of China’s imports—this is not a critical dependency. But overall, countries of the Persian Gulf meet about 30 percent of China’s needs. At a moment when the fate of the leading player in the Gulf is being decided, China has chosen neutrality.

It should be understood that if the United States achieves its goals in Iran, it will also influence the oil sales strategies of Arab countries. Despite this, China did not find the resolve to support Iran. It did not send a meaningful quantity of weapons or deploy its aircraft carrier group to make its position clear. The Chinese weapons that Iran possessed, especially air defense systems, performed poorly.

In the early days of the operation, China effectively scaled down its military activity around Taiwan. It failed to build a coalition capable of influencing the United States to stop military operations. From this, one may conclude that China has not yet fully emerged as a geopolitical power center. It is not enough to possess power—one must also have the will and the skill to use it.

The course of events shows that Iran’s military defeat is inevitable. Under such circumstances, this can be interpreted as a U.S. victory over Russia. Iran is 2.7 times larger in territory and twice as large in population as Ukraine. It has been preparing for war for 30 years. Its military capabilities are broadly comparable to Ukraine’s at the initial stage of the war with Russia, but Iran had a much stronger missile component.

The distance between the United States and Iran is 11,512 kilometers, creating significant logistical challenges. In contrast, Russia faces no such logistical issues in Ukraine due to their shared border.

Despite these difficulties, in the first days of the war the United States deprived Iran of its fleet, air defenses, and top military leadership. Half of its missile launch systems were destroyed or neutralized, ammunition depots and production facilities were destroyed. At the same time, the Americans have suffered virtually no combat losses. Minimal losses were mainly due to technical issues or lack of coordination. The main удар was delivered by air power. Iran’s air defense system, largely based on Russian systems, was destroyed in the initial wave and did not shoot down a single aircraft. U.S. aircraft now operate freely in Iranian airspace.

This suggests that, under certain conditions, similar operations could be carried out against Russia. Russia has been stagnating in Ukraine for five years. It has lost much of its Black Sea Fleet and does not dominate the airspace. Russian aircraft avoid entering Ukrainian airspace due to the threat from Patriot systems. Russia has lost between 20 and 40 percent of its strategic aviation and vast amounts of ground equipment. Human losses are estimated at around one million.

Therefore, concern is growing in Russia. There is an understanding that if the United States increases both the quantity and quality of weapons supplied to Ukraine, Ukraine could achieve victory.

The war has shown that, aside from the United States, no one is willing to take responsibility for global security. The Arab states of the Persian Gulf, despite suffering attacks, refused to join the war effort.

Europe has also failed to act as an independent center of power. Despite threats, it did not provide meaningful support. Spain refused refueling access, Britain delayed base access, and France and Germany distanced themselves. Only after pressure from the United States did NATO agree to assist in reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

Turkey’s position is of particular interest. Ankara opposed U.S. strikes, effectively supporting the status quo in Iran. At the same time, Turkey and Iran are not true allies—they are competitors.

It appears that Turkey fears a pro-American regime emerging in Iran, which could weaken its regional influence.

Some analysts compare the situation to U.S. wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan, suggesting Washington might withdraw. However, Iran has far greater geopolitical importance and potential economic implications.

Therefore, it can be asserted with high probability that the United States will continue military operations until it achieves its objectives.