Such arguments highlight one of the central dilemmas now facing Tehran.
If Iran responds too cautiously, conservatives fear that Washington and its allies may conclude that military and economic pressure can be imposed without significant consequences. But if Tehran escalates too aggressively, it risks turning a limited confrontation into a broader regional war and further damaging an already fragile economy.
A conservative source close to Iran’s power centres described the current situation as a possible period of “war between wars” in which both sides are studying previous confrontations and preparing for the next one.
The United States, the source said, appears to be pursuing several objectives simultaneously: increasing economic pressure, weakening Iran’s regional leverage, conducting periodic strikes, changing the strategic balance and rebuilding its military and intelligence capabilities.
“The key question is who benefits from time,” the source said.
I am not doubting Iran’s capacity nor will to fight, but that does not make it sustainable for Iran it just makes the suffering the US and Israel condemn the globe too all the more titanic in size.
US airpower has done a mindnumbingly awful amount of damage to the infrastructure of Iran, just because the US administration is under the illusion that airstrikes can exert political power, and just because an air campaign is nothing like an actual land invasion doesn’t mean the damage Iran has suffered is not existential along multiple dimensions… it just means that you would be a fool to think that would compel the Iranian people or government to surrender. Airpower has never and never will exert true political power, all it can do is destroy and deny, destroy and deny.