The United States appears militarily prepared to carry out limited strikes against Iran, yet remains far from the “decisive attack” sought by President Donald Trump.
According to Pentagon officials, such a limited strike could be carried out even immediately, should political authorization be given, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Nevertheless, a large scale military operation in the near future is not considered likely.
The same sources clarify that a truly decisive campaign against Iran would require far stronger regional air defense, both to protect Israel and U.S. military interests in the Middle East.
Escalation seriously worries the Pentagon
The prospect of such an operation is accompanied by serious escalation risks, as current assessments indicate that Tehran would respond with maximum firepower.
Already, the United States maintains significant air defense assets in the region, including destroyers capable of intercepting missile threats.
At the same time, it is further strengthening its presence by deploying additional Patriot and THAAD systems at military bases across the Middle East, including Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.
American military assessments are clear. In the event of a broad U.S. air campaign, Iran would respond with massive use of short and medium range ballistic missiles, targeting both U.S. facilities and Israel.
This reinforcement is not only about protecting American forces, but also about creating a broader defensive grid capable of absorbing the first waves of Iranian retaliation. However, even this strengthened network is considered insufficient to guarantee security in the event of a prolonged high intensity conflict.
Air defense fortification
This scenario explains why Washington insists on fortifying regional air defense before any escalation.
At the same time, Gulf states are also moving preemptively.
Saudi Arabia, according to a regional official, has acquired seven THAAD batteries, several of which have already been delivered, further strengthening the defensive grid against a potential Iranian response.
Overall, the picture that emerges is clear. The United States has the capability for limited military action, but the prospect of a short, clean, and decisive victory remains highly doubtful and potentially explosive for the entire region.
Limited action instead of generalized war does not rule out uncontrolled escalation
The overall framework shows that Washington is primarily examining scenarios of limited military action, which would have more of a warning or deterrent character rather than a strategic overthrow of the balance.
Such a strike would most likely target selected military infrastructure, aiming to send a message of power without crossing the threshold of full scale war.
However, regional experience shows that even “limited” strikes carry the risk of uncontrolled escalation.
Iran has repeatedly made it clear that it will not accept strikes without retaliation, a fact that drastically narrows the room for maneuver for the American side.
Fragile balance
Overall, the picture that emerges is one of a fragile military balance.
The United States possesses the operational capability to act immediately, but not the political and strategic certainty required for a decisive campaign.
Correspondingly, Iran has the means to impose significant costs in the event of an attack, functioning as a powerful deterrent factor.
In this environment, the option of limited action appears to be the least dangerous, but not necessarily safe, solution, in a region where every military move can act as a spark for a much wider conflagration.
Khamenei warns of regional war after any strike
Earlier, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, responding to Trump’s war ultimatum, warned that if the United States attacks, the conflict will turn into a regional war.
This is the most direct and harsh threat ever issued by the 86 year old leader.
Tehran makes it clear that in the event of an attack, it will target Israel and American military assets in the Middle East.
Despite this, Trump appears to claim that Iran is “talking seriously” with Washington, while at the same time once again adopting an ultra maximalist tone, accept my terms or prepare for a comprehensive campaign to dismantle your political system.
These threats have caused waves of anxiety across the entire region.
Even the leadership of Israel, with Netanyahu at the forefront, fears a prolonged and bloody conflict with unpredictable consequences.
Intelligence analyses indicate that the Iranian regime is not on the verge of collapse.
On the contrary, an external attack could act as a rallying force, neutralizing any internal pressure.
History, after all, is unforgiving. No resilient regime has collapsed solely from external bombardment.
Israel sees an attack in March
Meanwhile, the Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, held a series of discussions over the weekend of 31 January to 1 February with American officials, according to the Times of Israel.
Israel is on high alert and has carried out preparations in recent weeks after Trump threatened military action against Iran, against the backdrop of the regime’s killing of protesters.
The United States has also moved military assets into the Middle East, strengthening available firepower and defensive capabilities in the region.
Last week, Zamir met with the Commander of U.S. Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper, in Israel, as part of efforts between the militaries to coordinate ahead of a possible American strike on Iran.
Israel is seeking to receive adequate warning from the United States before any potential strikes on Iran, so that it can prepare defensively and inform the Israeli public.
According to Israeli officials, American strikes on Iran are expected toward the end of March.
However, several analysts remain skeptical of Israeli assessments regarding targeted strikes within two months, given the massive accumulation of U.S. military resources across the wider region.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών