Site icon Occasional Digest

How Israel and the United States can handle the Iranian regime

Occasional Digest - a story for you

Dr. Mike Evans, an advisor to President-elect Donald Trump, said that most of the Iranians hate their regime. “You’ve got 85 million people. Who are upset about the living hell they’ve gone through and their country being hijacked.” The Iranian regime, instead of providing basic needs for its people, prioritized supporting terror groups and investing in a nuclear program, aimed at producing nuclear weapons. This flawed policy brought sanctions that crippled Iran’s economy. The second Trump administration would probably drastically increase the sanctions on Iran, making the situation in Iran much worse. There are other reasons for Iran’s huge economic problems such as poor management and corruption. The 1979 Iranian Revolution promised to improve the standard of living of the Iranian people, but the Iranian regime failed to deliver it. The bad shape of the Iranian economy and the political oppression there brought waves of protests in the last decade. The next one is only a matter of time.

Another outburst in Iran could ignite a rebellion. The Iranian regime would rely on the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) and the Basij militia to suppress a revolt. Yet an iron fist approach might lead to a civil war, as it was in Arab states since 2011. Iran was involved in some of them, mostly in Syria. Iran’s aid to the Assad regime was essential for its survival. It was a tough and long fight. The Iranian regime must avoid a civil war in Iran, knowing the Iranian regime can’t rely on Assad to save it. Assad is quite weak. He might not be able to afford sending its troops to fight in Iran because Assad needs them to protect his rule. The Iranian regime could depend more on Hezbollah, which came to help Assad during the Syrian civil war, and would be even more eager to save its patron, the Iranian regime. Pro-Iranian militias from Syria and Iraq could too be called to Iran to assist their patron.

Israel and Iran used to be partners, until 1979. Since then, Iran has seen Israel as its nemesis. The Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei, and many Iranian top officials expressed over and again their hatred toward Israel. They don’t recognize Israel’s right to exist and called for its destruction. The conflict between the two states escalated in 2024, The peak was when Iran attacked Israel directly, in April and October. Iran might attack again. Israel could then retaliate by bombing Iran’s oil industry, which would be a major setback for the Iranian regime, since a large part of its revenues comes from oil. Lossing much of it would make it very difficult for Iran to support its proxies and to afford its nuclear program and subsidies, which would increase the chances of unrest.

Iran faces several constraints in protecting its oil sites. Fortifying them would be a tall order, considering their number and size. The oil infrastructure is also vulnerable, since it is in western Iran, within striking distance of Israeli aircraft, F- 15I and F- 16I. Deploying air defense batteries, to focus on protecting oil facilities would be at the expense of defending nuclear sites. Iran’s air defense is weaker now, after losing some of its best batteries, the S- 300, on October 26, 2024, the recent skirmish between Iran and Israel. Israel could also create a diversion, aimed at confusing and diverting Iranian resources to defend the wrong objectives.

Iran denies it wants nuclear weapons, claiming her nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, according to the religious ruling by Ali Khamenei from 2003. Yet others, let alone Israel, don’t believe Iran, for very good reasons. Iran is now very close to producing nuclear weapons. The United States can try to prevent it by imposing heavy sanctions but there has to be a military option, as a last resort. The United States might rather that Israel bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, with U.S. assistance at the military and diplomatic levels.

The IAF (Israeli Air Force) can reach Iran but some Iranian nuclear sites are well protected, by natural and / or artificial fortification. The IAF would have to penetrate them. The IAF’s bunker-buster bombs such as the GBU-28 might not be enough. The United States has the MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator), a 30,000-pound bomb, capable of cracking the highly protected Iranian nuclear sites. If the IAF gets the MOP, it needs also the B- 52 to carry them because the IAF has no heavy bombers.

The IAF will have to fly more than a thousand miles, just to reach Iran. The B – 52 has a very long range, almost 9,000 miles. This advantage could be used to reach Iran from an expected direction, to gain surprise. The B- 52 can fly around Arab states, and by that to avoid penetrating Gulf Arab states. Although Gulf Arab states like Saudi Arabia strongly oppose a nuclear Iran, they wish to stay out of any attack on it. Iran might retaliate against them, and they would call the United States to protect them. Since the Trump administration might seek to avoid intervening directly in this conflict, it emphasizes the value of the enormous range of the B – 52 to bypass Gulf Arab states.

All in all, Iran’s struggling economy might reach a new low point following new U.S. sanctions. It might increase the chances of unrest in Iran, one that can undermine the regime there. Iran might double down by striking Israel and or trying to produce nuclear weapons. If there is no better choice the United States or Israel have to be ready to bomb Iran’s oil and/ or nuclear sites.

Source link

Exit mobile version