The Economist claims the U.S.-Israel invasion of #Iran is "a stunning operational success". I am sure nobody is surprised by the report. But, let's say, that's one way of looking at it. There is no military parity between Iran, a country that has lived under economic sanctions for forty-seven years, and the world's most powerful country. Iran's missile defence is weak which also means that its enemies can relatively easily establish air superiority. Mossad and the CIA have penetrated deep inside Iran, which makes sure they have cutting-edge intel. So the kind of bombing of Iran which we are witnessing now is nothing astonishing to be honest. It is expected in the event of a war. Another way of looking at this war is to ask why did #trump and his bibi start it? Iran, per Oman, was ready to make major concessions on its nuclear programme. But Netanyahu wanted Iran to disarm itself -- which no Iran leader, except maybe bibi's crown prince, can accept. So the only way to disarm Iran was to bring about regime change and install a puppet in Tehran (so that you can change the balance of power in West Asia -- I wrote about it in TH Oped on Day 3). trump thought if he carried out the decapitation strike, the Iranian state would collapse. I base my analysis on two factors--One, trump's own statements; two, America's actions since the war broke out. Look at the statements first: On Day 1, trump literally asked Iranians to take over institutions and topple the government. He said it's a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means there was no proper plan. But trump hoped Iranians, who protested last month, would fill the streets and take over the state. But, as they say, hope is not a good strategy. And trump has made contradictory statements ever since--which shows only desperation. On Day 2, he told The Atlantic that he had authorised talks as Iranians wanted to talk. Within hours WSJ ran a story saying the Iranians wanted to talk. Larijani's quick response was that "we will never talk to the Americans." He threatened to "burn the hearts" of Iran's enemies. trump then talked to the Kurds, and, according to Washington Post, asked them to start fighting the Iranian state. On Day 6 evening, trump said in the White House that Iran wanted a deal. Araghchi responded saying Iran was not seeking a ceasefire. Pezeshkian confirmed mediation efforts, but asked the mediators to talk to "those who ignited the conflict". And then, on Day 7, you saw trump's angry post, demanding "unconditional surrender". He also wanted to have a say in the selection of the new Supreme Leader. Here trump is not seeking to topple the theocratic state, but to install a new leader acceptable to Washington. Meaning: he badly wants a Delcy. The U.S. had moved some troops away from its bases in the Persian Gulf, but had not evacuated its citizens from the region. trump was confident that the war would be over within days. The state did not collapse; instead, it swiftly regionalised the war--an indication that it was prepared for this moment. True, Iran has limitations when it comes to conventional might. But its doctrine is rooted in victory denial and its tactics are asymmetrical. As Hegseth said Iran knows it's not a fair fight. Hezbollah, which had been lying low since November 2024 despite Israel's repeated ceasefire violations, joined the war. Iran hit American bases and missions across the region. U.S. asked its citizens to leave a host of countries in the region only after Iran started retaliatory strikes--which suggests the U.S. was not prepared for this kind of a response. American bases in Kuwait, Qatar and its Fifth Fleet HQ in Bahrain took hits. The US also lost two advanced air defence radars--one AN/FPS-132 in Qatar and one AN/TPS-59 in Bahrain (it will take years to rebuild the radars, and according to an FP analysis, the companies would need gallium for both systems, a material whose supply is controlled by China). Iranian media says they took out another advanced radar in Jordan. Let's keep that aside, for now. The U.S. has also lost three F-15s in Kuwait. If you put only the two radars and the three F15s together, the loss would be around $1.5 billion. This is certainly not the war donald trump wanted to fight. trump's bad news doesn't end there. Kuwait said it is cutting oil production. Qatar says Gulf will have to stop energy exports within days if the war continues. Gas prices are already rocketing (Europe must be scratching its head now). Houthis, who knocked off half of Saudi Arabia's oil production for a week in 2019, haven't even joined the war. The Washington Post and CNN report Russia is providing intel to Iran about the locations and movement of American troops, which means another great power involvement, which could only get stronger if the war prolongs. To be sure, trump can pulverise Iran from the skies--what western media calls "astonishing operational success". But will that bring about regime change? It won't. Will that end the war? It won't. And if it doesn't, Iran will keep retaliating, enhancing the economic and political costs for trump, besides long-term strategic implications. So trump cannot fight a forever air war. As I said earlier, there is no Delcy in Tehran. At best the 'crown prince' can become a Likud Minister. If trump wants surrender of Iran, he may have to send ground troops. But Iran can also be a graveyard of invaders. What will trump do? -- Stanly Johny #IranWar #WarOnIran

Tehran’s strategy is to sow chaos and set the region on fire. By indiscriminately attacking its neighbours, the regime is making a strong case for its own demise. The dream scenario would be a democratic Iran that poses no threat to its neighbours. But this outcome is far from certain. Right now, no one can predict which direction Iran will take. My press remarks in Warsaw ↓