The war unleashed by the Epstein coalition against Iran could end in three ways: with the United States resorting to the launch of a tactical nuclear weapon; with the aggressors' ignominious withdrawal from the conflict, accompanied by a unilateral declaration of victory by the US and Israel; or with a mutually agreed-upon truce and a ceasefire, possibly mediated by third parties. By examining the aforementioned hypotheses, let's try to hypothesize the possible future scenarios that arise.
The first unfortunate scenario, the use of nuclear weapons, is less unlikely than ever now that the declared goal of the supporters of the operation called for by Trump and Netanyahu is to hasten the arrival of Armageddon, satisfying the most extremist wing of the neocoms .A tactical nuclear weapon would likely be used, which would be sufficient to deter the Iranians, thus inducing them to surrender. If we cast our minds back to the use of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we see that the United States is no stranger to this logic, justifying it with the intent of preventing American casualties and simultaneously ending the conflict (reasons used at the time to force Japan to surrender). Everything depends on how powerful and decisive the forces supporting Trump are in his action, and on their ability to influence him by using the blackmail elements presumably in Netanyahu's hands against the US President, and on the implications this decision would have for his wealth and the satisfaction of his ego. It seems highly unlikely that we can count on a surge of dignity from the US Senate and/or House of Representatives and their constitutional bodies to react and check the President's actions. If the unfortunate possibility of resorting to nuclear weapons were to materialize, it is highly unlikely that the launch of the device would be announced in advance, and naturally this would prevent Russia and China from putting a stop to US action. A nuclear holocaust unleashed on Iran, however, would not end the war, but would further inflame the Middle East and likely beyond, triggering a global nuclear conflict. In this scenario, any further consideration is superfluous.
The unilateral victory proclaimed
Using familiar rhetoric, the President of the United States could declare the conflict won and the objectives of the conflict achieved, although they were never declared and therefore can be assumed to have been achieved. Speaking literally outside the box, Trump identified a very broad range of motivations as the cause of the conflict: preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, an objective he declared achieved, most recently in the 12-Day War a statement evidently false, given that he was forced to resort to a new conflict to that end; he declared that the goal was to dismantle Iran's missile systems, reducing their numbers and thus hindering Iran's offensive capabilities; and he declared his desire to help the Iranian people rebel against the Hayatollah dictatorship, bringing about the regime's fall and the emergence of a government favorable to US interests.
He omitted to say, more likely, that the underlying objective was to implement Breziski's plan, conceived in the 1990s, which envisioned Iran (as with Russia) disintegrating and splitting it into multiple ethnically diverse states, thus rendering the country's regional leadership impossible a plan widely shared by its Israeli ally.
It cannot be ruled out that with the passage of time and the persistence of the conflict, the White House resident will invent other motives: from this perspective, his imagination is boundless and his ability to lie is unparalleled.
It should also be added that the Israeli ally pursues, as its goal, the creation of the so-called "Greater Israel", that is, the expansion of the Jewish state to the detriment of Syria, Lebanon, and why not, Iraq, with the ambition of reaching the Euphrates, appropriating the region's coveted water resources and becoming the absolute hegemonic power in the area, without any counterbalance.
As it happens, however, this hypothesis and plan are opposed not only by Iran, which has every intention of remaining united and competing not only with Israel but also with the region's medium-sized powers for influence over the entire Middle East; but also by Turkey, which, it is worth remembering, is a NATO country, has the largest and best-armed army in the entire Atlantic Alliance, has imperial ambitions, and now, after the events in Syria and after having piloted regime change, holds control of Syria and de facto borders the Jewish state. Furthermore, faced with this project, Turkey has every interest in promoting the integrity of Iran, considering that from its ashes could arise a district of a Kurdish entity that would act as a catalyst for the Iraqi Kurds and especially the 2 million Kurds living in Turkey, as evidenced by Erdogan's statements on Netanyahu's policies, which he has called a danger to humanity.
Another regional player not to be overlooked is Saudi Arabia, which also benefits from its privileged ties with Pakistan, a nuclear power, which Saudi Arabia once financed to build. For this reason, the Saudis have no intention of placing themselves in a subordinate position compared to the other two contenders we've mentioned. Nor can we underestimate the interests and intentions of Egypt, which, it should be remembered, is one of the region's most populous states, as well as the many Arabian Gulf states that thrive on their economic and financial power, barely dented but not destroyed by the ongoing war.
Nor should we underestimate the fact that Iran's extension of the conflict to US bases in these countries, which were supposed to provide a guarantee of security for the region, has thrown the entire US security system in the region into a crisis, perhaps irreversible. Rich but not stupid, the fake Gulf monarchies have observed that, faced with the Iranian attack, the United States has prioritized the defense of the Jewish state over its own. This fact is leading many to reflect on the wisdom of maintaining their "protection" and alliance with the United States, given that it offers no guarantee of security and, indeed, undermines social stability for the populations, siding against their interests. These countries may conclude that perhaps the time has come to look elsewhere to secure sufficient support to meet their needs, by fully reinforcing their appeal to Russia and/or China, as well as to India, an emerging power, as appears to be already happening while the conflict is still ongoing.
The difficulties facing the Epstein coalition are quite evident, as evidenced by the fact that, faced with Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Trump attempted to call for the formation of a coalition of countries "interested in keeping navigation open," calling for the formation of a joint naval force. This is not so much because the US Navy cannot operate alone, but because for the first time, the United States is going to war without the political support and cooperation of its subjects, demonstrating that the empire is so weak it cannot force its vassals to serve as cannon fodder and provide auxiliary troops. Hence the use of arrogance to mask isolation, the threats sent through shady figures such as Senator and fixer Lindsey Graham, and the attempt to drag NATO into the war by attempting to use, despite the lack of authorization from European countries, a NATO base located in Romania, controlled by the US, to fuel the conflict and bomb it, turning it into a legitimate target for the Iranians.
Despite all this, Trump persists in his error and considers a Marine invasion that would lead to a massacre of US troops and the United States engaging in an endless war, similar to that of Vietnam or Afghanistan, as Netanyahu would like. A possible land invasion on Iranian soil, whether on an island in the Persian Gulf or, even more so, on the coast, would put the Americans in a difficult position, having to face an army of 2 million men. The Americans and Trump have underestimated the effect of internal cohesion in the event of war and the vocation to martyrdom as an ethical choice for the right life, which is an essential part of Shi'ism, in particular.
Mediation
At this point, the most likely and desirable scenario is mediation by Russia or China, or both, allowing for the acceptance of a ceasefire and the signing of a truce, leaving the parties in their respective positions, with the apparent result that no one has won and no one has lost. Hypothesizing any role for the European Union is entirely impossible, given the political personnel that leads it: individuals like von der Stupid or Kretina Kaja Kallas are silent and absent, due to their lack of credibility and their blatant ineptitude, even though European countries, along with Asian ones, are the ones most affected by this war.
What is certain is that, by resisting the joint Israeli-American attack, Iran has already won the first part of its battle, which will inevitably materialize, once hostilities cease, with the construction of the nuclear weapon, as a means of guaranteeing independence (as happened with North Korea, Pakistan, and India) and in the definitive alliance with China and Russia, allowing this alliance strategic control over Asia, with projections toward Europe and the Middle East.
Iran will be able to bring this alliance the gift of dismantling the US security system, consisting of the complex of bases the US has spread throughout the Arab world and the Middle East. Not only that, but who will trust the United States as a credible interlocutor anymore, given that it has developed the habit of bombing during negotiations? It's undoubtedly a remarkable achievement! All this without even considering the economic costs of the conflict for the United States and its strained balance of payments, expenses for which Trump will have to account to the country during the midterm elections taking place in September.
While it's currently unclear how Trump can extricate himself from the mess he's gotten himself into, the conflict cannot continue indefinitely for technical reasons, namely the depletion of weaponry, drone interceptors, and missiles, and the wear and tear to which both the US and Israeli air forces are subjected. An opportunity could arise from Israel's invasion of South Lebanon, an initiative undertaken not only to target Hezbollah but also to seize another plot of land to be added to the mosaic of "Greater Israel," alongside the Syrian territories already occupied, while also completing the definitive acquisition of the West Bank and the expulsion of the Palestinians. This Israeli strategy inaugurates the conflict with Turkey, contributing to redrawing the political balance in the Middle East.
The Editorial Staff
https://www.ucadi.org/2026/03/28/la-guerra-e-i-nuovi-equilibri-geopolitici/
_________________________________________
Link: (en) Italy, UCADI, #206 - War and the new geopolitical balances (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]
Source - A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten