From Rivalry to Reaction: A Distorted Public Lens
The Israel–Iran conflict has long remained confined to calibrated confrontation. And yet, public reactions often resemble a sporting rivalry—loud, tribal, and cognitively distorted. This leads to widespread analytical confusion, especially in an environment where information warfare dominates perception. (As foresaw in the Foresights section of the website, I predicted a limited, symbolically heavy strike months in advance.)
Measured Escalation: A Mirror of Targets
Over time, we’ve witnessed a slow expansion of targets, but retaliation has remained reciprocal and proportionate—with the notable exception of the recent U.S. strikes on Natanz and Parchin in May 2025. These strikes were cloaked in strategic ambiguity but widely understood to target uranium enrichment and missile integration infrastructure. Still, the choreography of escalation remains tightly disciplined:
- Military site ↔ Military site
- Oil/gas facility ↔ Energy infrastructure
- Civilian area ↔ Civilian area
- Bank ↔ Financial hub
- Hospital ↔ Health facility
This symmetry is not accidental—it reflects the enduring logic of controlled escalation, where neither side seeks total war, yet neither can afford strategic silence.
Iran’s Nuclear Strategy: A Stalemate by Design
Iran’s nuclear negotiations—revived through European mediation in early 2025—were entering a prolonged stalemate favoring Tehran. The strategy was clear: buy time, demonstrate survivability, and resist external leverage. This trajectory had to be disrupted. First came Israel’s limited air operations across Syria and Iraq in April, then the more direct and unprecedented U.S. bombings.
The End of Regime Change Rhetoric
The “regime change” narrative, dominant under the Trump administration, has now fully dissolved. As predicted, the Biden administration—backed by key elements of the Pentagon—has shifted to a doctrine of “containment and degradation” rather than regime collapse. The logistics of regime change are universally understood to be prohibitive: too long, too costly, too uncertain. It is a fantasy fueled by punditry, not military calculus. Assassinations may slow a system—they do not unmake it.
An Unbreakable Bond: The Israel–U.S. Structural Alignment
Israel’s long-term deterrence posture requires a durable American footprint in the region. Can America resist entanglement? In theory, yes. But the Israel–U.S. relationship is not transactional; it’s structural. Over the past four decades, it has evolved into a deep interlock between the world’s military superpower and one of the most influential regional economic-technological states. The relationship has become normalized, bipartisan, and systematized. No U.S. president—not even one campaigning on restraint—can easily unwind it.
More Than Netanyahu: Strategic Confidence as Policy
Israel’s power goes well beyond weapons. When Netanyahu wants, he can calibrate Gulf State reactions, including pushing Saudi Arabia’s MBS to temper his rhetoric on Palestine. While many dismiss Netanyahu as a polarizing figure, he remains the clearest voice of Israel’s maximalist strategic vision. But this isn’t about individuals alone. It’s about a consistent national logic. Israel no longer seeks approval—it seeks maneuvering space. Territorial, political, and discursive space.
Understanding Iran: A Fractured System, Not a Monolith
Iran, in contrast, is often misunderstood as a monolith. In reality, it is a fractured but adaptive political system, where hardliners, moderates, and Revolutionary Guard economic elites compete and compromise. The recent dismissal of Ali Bagheri Kani from the nuclear negotiating team in June 2025 reflected a pivot back toward securitization over diplomacy. Still, Tehran’s actions abroad are often consensus-driven, reflecting a complex survival logic. Misreading Iran’s factionalism leads to misreading its timing and intent.
Strategic Reciprocity, Not Obedience
America’s continued support for Israel is not blind obedience. It’s a strategic arrangement that delivers technological gains, intelligence depth, and alignment on global rivals. Israel will continue to get what it needs—not everything it wants. And America, in turn, will extract what it deems essential: a manageable region, constrained Iran, and the perception of control. But the ceiling of cooperation remains clear: no large-scale regime-toppling invasions. The shadow of Iraq looms too large. What exists instead is a forward doctrine of strategic attrition.
The Narrative Weapon: Sustaining Public Legitimacy
This doctrine benefits from narrative scaffolding: Iran as a looming nuclear threat. It keeps Western publics aligned with action, while preventing complacency in Tel Aviv. As long as Iran refuses to fully de-escalate, the bombings will continue. But China’s relative passivity, combined with a renewed U.S. confidence after the Taiwan détente in early 2025, means Washington now has bandwidth—and weapons—to strike harder. Still, such power is rarely deployed without cost. Israel, too, will pay a price for trying to remap its neighborhood, just as America paid in Baghdad. No deterrent architecture comes without friction.
Core Structural Truths
The noise of daily headlines can drown reality. But some constants remain:
- Washington will guarantee Israel’s regional security, no matter the presidency.
- The American public will be convinced—through events, symbols, or stories.
- Iran will be pushed inward, weakened institutionally—exactly as foreseen months ago.
- A nuclear-free, degraded Iran remains the primary shared goal—however it is approached.
- If Iran persists in retaliations, 2025 will not be the end of the strikes—it will be their normalization.
Persistent Fault Lines: What Has Not Been Achieved
1. Israel’s Incomplete Neutralization of Iran’s Missile Forces
Despite intensive operations, large portions of Iran’s missile infrastructure—especially hardened silos, underground depots, and mobile launch systems—remain operational. This leaves Iran with a credible second-strike capacity and limits Israel’s ability to shift the strategic balance permanently. Without the full neutralization of the missile threat, any temporary deterrence is just that—temporary.
2. Disappearance of Enriched Uranium: Strategic Ambiguity Returns
Roughly 400–500 kg of enriched uranium and associated nuclear hardware are currently unaccounted for. This is the most alarming development. Whether the material has been dispersed to hardened facilities or moved into concealment, the result is the same: Iran has entered the nuclear ambiguity zone. It may not be sprinting toward a bomb, but the disappearance of this material ends the period of semi-transparency. It gives Iran tremendous strategic leverage and makes preemptive targeting dramatically harder. This shift signals a long-term change in posture—from semi-cooperative opacity to deliberate concealment, akin to North Korea’s model.
In short, while strikes have inflicted pain and sent clear messages, deterrence has not been fully restored—it has merely shifted shape. Israel and the United States now face a more ambiguous, fragmented, and potentially prolonged confrontation. Strategic ambiguity favors the patient and the concealed—and Iran knows this well.
I Refuse to Cheer for Fire and Ruin
I do not stand with those cheering on fire and ruin.
I am not among the analysts who speak with cold detachment from civilian pain.
I am not going to be lectured by unformed voices who confuse online warfare with reality.
A Grounded Forecast
Iran, for all its resilience, is paying dearly for its institutional hostility toward the world’s most advanced military and most networked regional power.
Israel, too, will bear the consequences of its relentless pursuit of security through force.
And America will also pay a price—for its special relationship with Israel, for the military and moral weight of that alignment, and for the long-term instability that such entanglements often generate.
These are not moral judgments—they are historical patterns.
And history is not short on Middle Eastern tragedies.
With no illusions and with full sincerity,
I wish both Israeli and Iranian civilians—not their regimes—
a summer of safety, silence, and sunlight.