Pre-War Analysis of the Iran Question

In light of the growing talk about a possible strike on Iran in the near future, I wanted to share a few thoughts.

Not long ago, Iran gave yet another classic example of how a brutal regime crushes popular protest.
This is a regime that long ago fully earned its status as an international sponsor of terror.
What we saw was a real and rare social explosion, born out of a deep economic crisis, a sharp fall in living standards, and an almost total loss of trust in the government.

When those protests broke out, the international community, including the United States, had a window for real action.
It could have carried out precise, strategic strikes on the regime’s military centers of power, especially the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, without harming the civilian population.

But that moment was missed.
Instead of striking exactly where it would have weakened the regime while also strengthening the protesting part of society, inaction was chosen: words and sanctions.
The promises to support the protesters remained on paper, and the violent repression continued.

Now the picture is much darker.
Instead of at least trying to use the wave of public anger to bring about deep political change, everything is moving toward direct military confrontation, with a real danger that the war could spread across the region.

If such a strike does take place, it will no longer happen against a favorable backdrop on the ground,
but against an enemy armed to the teeth, mobilized, and prepared for confrontation.

Whether because of Donald Trump’s foolish naivety, his belief in his own greatness and in the “genius” of his negotiating skills,
or simply because of hesitation, the moment was lost.
And we will be the first to pay the price, not those who made the decisions.

What could have ended in a matter of days as a popular uprising reinforced by targeted strikes on the pillars of the regime
may now instead develop along the Iraqi model: years of chaos, violence, and outside interference.

Because instead of quick and limited action, what now seems increasingly realistic is a scenario involving a ground presence.
And history shows again and again that people react very badly to armed outsiders entering their home.
At that moment, those who could have been allies become enemies defending their own land.