Middle East Meltdown: Iran - Reconnaissance by fire

Retrospective review of "Brief Food for Thought on Iran"

Russia, China, Iran and North Korea—individually and collectively—are challenging U.S. interests in the world by attacking or threatening others in their regions, with both asymmetric and conventional hard power tactics, and promoting alternative systems to compete with the United States, primarily in trade, finance, and security. They seek to challenge the United States and other countries through deliberate campaigns to gain an advantage, while also trying to avoid direct war.

Growing cooperation between and among these adversaries is increasing their fortitude against the United States, the potential for hostilities with any one of them to draw in another, and pressure on other global actors to choose sides.

Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, 2025

This article is a review of our previous piece, “Brief Food for Thought on Iran”. We assess its claims in retrospect.

We include a reader evaluation tool for you at the bottom of the article.

We've also reviewed using chatGPT and include a link for you to look at that method and the result. We do not especially rate LLM critique having done it in detail across a huge number of articles and find it lacking in many ways, but this is a form of testing that has value when it comes to revealing what LLMs are.

Final Evaluation

Overall Accuracy Rating: 4.4 / 5

Classification: ✅ Strategically rigorous and empirically grounded.

This article constitutes a credible geopolitical analysis operating from a realist framework. It prioritises force dynamics, pretextual manipulation, and power asymmetry over normative or institutional framings—appropriate for the domain and conditions it describes. Its rhetorical register may obscure its analytic rigour to general readers but stands up to systematic verification.

Review

A pivotal moment in global history. Israel-Iran interchange now will determine the course of the future.

For the first time in history, direct kinetic warfare between USIS and Iran occurred. Prior to this, skirmishes and engagements were limited to bilateral exchange. This engagement, dubbed “True Promise 3” by the Iranians went far beyond True Promise 1 and 2 in demonstrating the destructive reality of Iran's present arsenal and its offensive/defensive doctrine.

To think that this doesn't represent a historic node from which history has been driven into a new branch is likely naive. It has already resulted in actions that were not known to be actively considered by the Iranians, namely the cessation of relations and interactions with the IAEA, whose integrity has been fundamentally questioned by the events in and around True Promise 3. There's also an unconfirmed potential technical capability regarding Iran's ability to affect traffic through the Strait of Hormuz via navigational signal jamming in one of the busiest and most important global waterways.¹

How does one win once forced to play?

By engaging on one's own terms. How that's done & by whom is the million dollar question.

A statement of the obvious, perhaps. We alluded to the inherently asymmetric nature of the conflict in which Iran's military doctrine and degree of force would be pitted against a markedly different USIS offensive strategic and tactical playbook. Seeing this play out is a form of reconnaissance by fire², hence the title.

If recon by fire seems too lightweight a term for a 12 day engagement that has inflicted huge damage and death, consider this: the engagement was actively broken off by the initiators, with the defender’s eventual agreement. The exact reasons why are still the subject of speculation.

Recon by fire is not the end of the war. It is a manoeuvre within an ongoing conflict. The Annual Threat Assessment 2025³ describes an ongoing conflict centering around 4 key actors: China, Russia, Iran & DPRK. Peace does not exist and will not, by the USA's own explicit assessment and threat-based policy trajectory.

Further delay of True Promise 3?

Professor Seyed Marandi has bigged up Iran's will & ability to strike back.

Marandi plays a specific and necessary role: a cultural and political bridging perspective between the Persians and the Anglo Saxons. He issued repeated warnings that Iran would ratchet its response to being attacked though proportionality, which is what seemed to occur in True Promise 1 & 2. He also stated that True Promise 3 would occur at some point of Iranian choosing and could widen to include regional strikes and infliction of global economic harm via the Strait of Hormuz.⁴

His statements proved to be largely accurate insofar as TP3 developed once USIS crossed an adequate threshold.⁵

Iran preventing USA Israel escalatory retaliation has to be a goal i.e. charting a line that doesn't trigger escalation to tactical nukes or bigger while substantively destroying Israel's ability to attack Iran any more and simultaneously forcing the USA to back off.

This accurately described a tactical line that Iran had to walk, irrespective of what its opponents had actually planned. At no time has USIS attempted to lodge formal justification for its attacks, despite three UNSC meetings in June concerned with “The situation in the Middle East”.⁶

Exactly how effective Iran's response was is obviously debatable and subject to partisan bias. However, it is likely fair to say that Iran successfully showcased not just some of its arsenal's technical and destructive capability but also revealed Israel's physical, technological, military and economic vulnerability.⁷

In short, USIS is not invincible or invulnerable. The Israeli press has been carrying huge amounts of stories regarding the dire economic impact of the Gaza genocide on the country, prior to TP3. None of the adversaries in this theatre are in any way considered or described by USIS as “near peer”, despite the admission by the USA in both rhetorical and physical terms that it's unable to beat the Yemenis in combat.⁸

The Iron Dome, like all AD, has been saturated and depleted by an adversary employing solely unmanned stand off attacks and mixed tactics on a basis Iran can solely afford (for the time being) and produces mostly in house.⁹

Despite Israel's utterly draconian shut down of media and citizen filming and sharing of Iranian missile strikes and damage, available footage shows many breakthrough impacts as well as later low rates of interceptor launches.

It's credible to entertain the notion that Iran's response was too effective, which is why Israel required direct support and intervention from the USA as a stop loss.

Doing little to nothing has led to this USA-Israel pincer provocation decapitation strike this morning (forced Catch 22?).

In hindsight, this is a rather glib assertion, and really the inverse is likely more accurate. Iran didn't do nothing. It's more likely that Iran's strategically autonomous actions outside of the demands of USIS, and forging of competitive alliances through BRICS, are key reasons why it was finally attacked.¹⁰ However, the Catch 22 is accurate, proven and a deliberate and admitted USIS construct that we think is very, very rarely if ever expressed in Western discourse. Iran was placed into a long term trap and actively managed and baited through it by USIS, who used relevant institutions including the IAEA to set a pretext that was exploited when at least Israel, and likely USIS as a single entity, believed the strategic chances for breaking the Iranian government were as good as they could get.¹¹ this may also coincide with Iran's declared acquisition of a “treasure trove” of intelligence documents in Israel's illegal and undeclared nuclear weapons programs.

Timing of a strike on Iran being relatively optimal is suggested by the 2025 Annual Threat Assessment:

Iran’s Challenges

Iranian leaders recognize the country is at one of its most fragile points since the Iran-Iraq war, which probably weighs on their strategic calculus and confidence in their approach toward the region, the United States, and U.S. partners. They face growing political, social, economic, and regional pressures, leaving Iran increasingly vulnerable to regime-threatening instability and external interference.

Annual Threat Assessment 2025

2009 Saban Center's strategic policy generation document “Which Path to Persia?”¹²:

In a similar vein, any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would con-clude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

WHICH PATH TO PERSIA? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran

Pollack, Byman, Indyk, Maloney, O’Hanlon, Riedel

The political convert, DNI Gabbard, may have said there was again no proof that Iran was constructing or wanted to construct a nuclear weapon, but that didn't matter in the bigger picture of threat-based pretext construction.

The only ones who will hold Israel to account are Iranians. Genocide in Palestine proves almost all the Middle East is cowed, bought & corrupted into USA vassalage & self interest.

In this case, the direct military and potential political and economic consequences of Iranian force appear to be the primary means by which Israel has been held to account for its attacks. Iran's allies did not formally mobilise or express intent to. They are formally limited by the scope of extant treaties and by the lack of formal requests for support, both of which may be changing (more proof of the historic branching point these events constitute).

Institutional power is non existent.

Literally no institutional power could be brought to bear in any deterministic manner in the conflict. UNSC emergency meetings resulted in no resolutions and there were largely inconsequential exchanges and accusations passed around. Israel's representative delivered a litany of unevidenced assertions that could be applied more accurately to USIS-UK than to Iran, proven with reference to public records.

IHL and legality was neither a deterrent nor an arbiter of events.

"Might makes right" remains the law of the jungle.

This was proven to be the case in this conflict by all sides in differing ways. In short, each party's ability to exert force and inflict damage on each other is what determined outcomes including bringing about a cessation (for the time being).

These circumstances are the direct symptom of two things:

1. USA hegemonic strategic interests being exerted via Israel through both sponsorship & tolerance;

2. Perceived relative impunity & corrupted political, power & ethnoreligious incentives across Israel, USA, EU, UK etc. Common factors being Zionism, Abrahamic faiths, resource control and expansion of hegemonic and regional strategic partner power.

Attacks originated from USIS employing false, unevidenced pretexts as post hoc justification that completely ignored formal processes that would still never have authorised attacks.

Those on the side of USIS have and will claim that it is valid to attack a state if you accuse it of being adequately technically close to developing a working nuclear weapon, irrespective of its relationship to the NPT, and that it can represent an adequately imminent existential threat. No one is ever going to adjudicate on that in this case. USIS's bilateral extra-judicial actions exploit that reality. USIS will never engage in any form of structural, judicial process because it simply doesn't have to.

An obvious mechanic in play:

• Israel attacks Iran;

• Iran delivers "definitive" response;

• USA declares proof of existential threat intent & capability from Iran;

• USA initiates solo or joint strikes under that pretext, all to achieve what it & Israel has always sought.

This is exactly how events superficially played out, with the USA strike being presented as a defining, terminal interjection to proceedings, which it actually wasn’t, based on the fact that Iran did not request cessation or terms but was persuaded to agree to hold fire (no party has signed any terms).

“Israeli interest = USA interest” is repeatedly explicitly stated by both administrations/regimes.

This is simply a statement of fact.¹³

Under that mechanic, what's Iran's winning move?

This loaded question begs the definition of winning, which is wide open to interpretation, hence its inclusion.

VST posed the question but can't and won't attempt to answer it. For sure, there's no terminal winning end point on the continuum of history. USIS regional interests and focus on Iran isn't going to end for internal and external permanent strategic reasons linked to the warfare economy, political and religious ideologies, none of which can be bombed out of existence.

If Iranian air defence was definitive, Israeli strikes wouldn't land. Without definitive AD, Israel has an escalatory prerogative and attack vector. Iranian retaliation that could remove it will breach "USA interest"

There's some provable truth in this.

Most if not all Israeli strikes were conducted by air power. Air Defence deals with aircraft and projectiles. Even if air strikes are conducted from outside of one’s airspace/territory with stand off weapons, sophisticated AD should still be able to deal with such attacks.

The fog of war leaves unclear the degree to which USIS aircraft actually penetrated Iranian AD shields, airspace and territory (all three are different). No significant amount of video or clear reports detail USIS aircraft in Iran, conducting attacks freely in the AO. This means that assessment of Iran's AD network cannot be accurately completed if it was attacked predominantly with stand off weapons that kept aircraft mostly out of the AD shield.

The USA's supposed B-2 attack may not have been conducted as claimed; from not actually employing B-2s and GBU-57s at all, to being fully telegraphed and negotiated with Iran through the Russians as intermediaries, as part of a performative exercise. As time goes on, the internal USA media picture is openly and repetitively questioning both the strike efficacy and the integrity of the overall operational claims.

The nature and style of the administration's responses are indicative of a basis for suspicion and doubt.

However, we flag our belief that everything to do with the post strike media critique is pseudoparadoxical: if the media and Dems hate Trump they should be going after him to maximum effect, but they are not. The initial move to impeach Trump was scuppered 344-79, (128 Dems against, 79 for). Why? Because bombing Iran is a Uniparty strategic objective, the total power of the President to do such things transcends the nominal primacy of law, and the vast majority of politics is performative.

Netanyahu's standard insane ethnoreligious script is tired but there is no meaningful, force-based opposition and there is zero institutional containment of USA Israel agendas and actions.

Apart from Iran defending itself against a USIS agendas that is unashamedly grounded in Christian and Judaic Zionist political goals and agendas, all of which lever ethnoreligious supremacy, there was no other direct, force-based opposition in play. This may change structurally then actually in the course of time, giving rise to more kinetic warfare because the attacks were never actually about Iran's nuclear capability.

If you can mass murder children while declaring your intent to "destroy everything", you have no limit.

YOU ARE THE ABYSS.

Recent Middle Eastern events serve at least some purpose in revealing the true nature of the regional objectives and force-limit of USIS, even if the sad truth is that it remains inadequately challenged by any sufficient counter collective.

What Iran's response shows is that USIS is not unassailable in the region, although Gaza, Lebanon and Yemen all demonstrate that in their own way on a piecemeal basis. However, there remains an absence of effective, coordinated and mobilised counteraction, which is a parallel with the “oppressor-oppressed” dynamic from the state level down to citizenry, globally. There are many reasons for this and parallelism doesn't carry though the downwards detail.

Even the Israeli press openly decries the psychopathy of Israeli forces.¹⁴¹⁵

Every single politician, pundit, analyst, commentator & opinion is actively being tested as of the Israeli strike.

This is true in many ways. How people structurally framed events in terms of pretext, justification, provocation, legality, offense/defence, independence, joint venture, as well as any forecasting all reveal huge amounts about them as commentators.

Anyone who said the USA wasn't involved up front and that Israel was actively trying to drag a reluctant USA into the conflict has been proven wrong directly by Trump and DoD.¹⁶ Midnight Hammer was planned months ago, showing intent. It was described as literal joint venture by Trump in his national address.¹⁷ Whether it was or not is for sceptics to now prove and thereby prove Trump's possible lie. Until then, its long standing intentional joint venture that was planned months before July 12th Israeli attacks, which were the kinetic inception of the conflict that enabled Midnight Hammer.

Most journalists on both sides that we've seen pushed the “Israel is trying to drag the USA into the fight”. It was always in the fight. We said this from the kick off. It was confirmed by Trump and DoD at the end. Why is this understanding beyond so many “professionals”?¹⁸

ZERO people passed the "predict Syria" test. No one anticipated and called the collapse of the Assad regime. ALMOST ZERO will pass the "how will Israel-Iran pan out?" test.

Scott Ritter stood out as one of the few who warned that Iran’s actions and rhetoric were handing the U.S. and Israel a pretext for a strike. He explicitly noted that destroying Iran’s three known nuclear facilities would likely require tactical nuclear weapons. Yet many misread his analysis as endorsing U.S. aggression rather than objectively outlining how the U.S. could justify such a move.¹⁹

Ritter faced relentless online attacks, was accused of supporting imperialism, while some journalists—supposed allies—capitalized on these misinterpretations to push demonstrably false narratives. His prediction proved prescient: B-2 bombers struck Iranian targets, though with conventional weapons, not the tactical nukes he suggested. In the lead-up to the strike, I asked Ritter directly if it was imminent:²⁰

Is it feasible that there's a recursive Catch 22 going on where Iran has to find that line where it can suppress Israel without crossing a line that'll give the US a false pretext to then initiate what you previously described as a potential tactical nuke attack on the nuclear facilities? I look at the war and think the way that's being prosecuted is to engage Iran on a primary front against Israel, which weakens it when you engage on a secondary front and bring in the B-2s on the flank, and all of this can be done on the pre-existing false pretext that Iran is “an existential threat to the strategic interests regionally of USIS.”

Ritter said, “I think if that case could be made I think the USA would be actively engaged right now. It's a very difficult call for the President to articulate Iran as an active nuclear threat when two things: Tulsi Gabbard just gave a briefing to Congress that said the exact opposite; and he'd been engaged in meaningful negotiations with the Iranians that weren't predicated on Iran being a nuclear state but on Iran becoming a nuclear state.”

The scenario I described was, in fact, real and unfolding, which made Ritter’s response surprising.

I had outlined a sequence enabling Ritter’s predicted strike and asked, “Is this happening now?” He responded, “If it could be justified, it would’ve happened already.” In reality, it was happening. Israel’s alleged attack, widely criticized as unlawful, set the stage for the U.S. to amplify this false nuclear threat pretext and deploy B-2s using a months old plan. The absence of tactical nukes suggests a theatrical escalation, not a full commitment to destroying Iran’s nuclear program. That outcome serves political interests across the board.

Weeks earlier, Ritter had acknowledged the possibility of such a strike,²¹ yet he failed to see it taking actual shape. He seemed to believe a certain sequence of events had to occur—absent contradictory narratives like Gabbard’s briefing or ongoing talks. He overlooked key factors:

• Gabbard’s briefing, which labeled Iran, Russia, and China as top threats, noted Iran was “not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so.” But this statement in no way prevented USIS from conducting false negotiations and illegal attacks.

• Ritter himself had argued that the U.S. would act on a pretext before Iran became nuclear.

• Negotiations or public statements could be ignored or manipulated to serve political ends.

• Exigent circumstances, like an alleged imminent Iranian threat (real or not), or Israeli pressure could drive a covertly planned strike, independent of public narratives.

• International and domestic law is not a deterrent to USIS acting unilaterally or bilaterally in contravention of those laws, and the legislative and judicial bodies in both the USA and Israel will not hold the actors to account or enforce the law.

This reveals a disconnect in Ritter’s analysis: he grasps U.S. motives and capabilities but missed that these actions didn't need a tidy, legal checklist.

The day after I put this to him, he began to publicly state that the USA was going to enter the war somehow.²²

The above is not a takedown of Scott Ritter, far from it. It's a factual recounting (on tape) of an analytical discombobulation. Ritter was, in my opinion, right about how and why the USA would attack, and he was actually proved right. Few others publicly warned of how the USA might act towards Iran using a pretext that, in Ritter's opinion, Iran was giving it. It's that last sentiment (Iran brought this on itself) that led to him being turned on, even though it was a correct realist observation, and one which I defended him on.

In reality, if you saw the puzzle the way Ritter did then saw reality the way I did, the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities was literally zero surprise. Nor was the aftermath. Performative, coordinated, inadequate or not, nothing that's just happened is de-escalatory beyond the immediate short-term. If it's pre-planned and not purely reactionary then none of it’s designed to be de-escalatory.

That tactical nukes were not employed means two things:

1. There's no real intent to destroy Iran's nuclear capability because Iran plays a strategic narrative role as enemy. Genuinely neutralizing it fundamentally impacts US hegemonic military industrial security complex strategy, which is untouchable.

2. The true calculus of tactical nukes has not been determined to present adequate risk reward. Their use would provide a Balance of Power swing around the nuclear weapons fulcrum that cannot be predicted. Pakistan's tacit support for Iran, combined with Russia and China's diplomatic support may have been enough to stay those who believe USIS can legitimately use tactical nukes against an Iranian nuclear pretext, for now.

VST literally said “USIS escalation is guaranteed.”

This is reconnaissance by fire between hostile states that has resulted in bloody noses for both and perhaps a stab in the leg for Israel. Intervention by “daddy” (in the words of the sycophantic NATO shill, Mark Rutte) has triggered Phase Shift, not a cease fire and certainly not peace. Both sides are now into active and parallel workstreams to ready for the next round of the conflict that won't end. This is a hybrid forever war that just kinetically spiked for tactical reasons: USIS wanted to find out if Iran was as weak as Syria after all the decades of deprivation. It's not, but exactly how much depth and capability it has hasn't been fully tested. Israel's overextended, hubristic, and run by psychopaths drunk on power and a belief in their own supremacy/exceptionalism. USIS's interpretation of opportunistic timing (formalised in the ATA) hit a wall. Time to pull back and dust off.

Most have claimed Iran is a sleeping dragon. How many have said that even if it is, it has allowed itself to be put into a legal, political, military & economic corner?

Trying to exit the corner guarantees massive damage to it & more beyond, giving pretext to its enemies for their maximal retribution via skewed narrative through territories vassalised via hybrid warfare over decades.

Like it or not, Iran's been put in a corner over decades. In recent years it has taken counter steps that are finally being fully tested: military, politically, economically, technologically. It is in a corner and will sustain more damage trying to move out.

It has observed international law and remained conformant to the NPT up until a recently determined non conformance that did not justify any attack. It has grown its allegiances and economic ties through BRICS, to provide economic bypasses to sanctions. Because of this, USIS has calculated that now is the time to attack when Iran is weak enough and at the cusp of economic breakaway. USIS attacked after building a strategic corridor and overstress via Syria and Gaza/Lebanon respectively.

If Iran is shown to have failed to build adequate AD networks or refused such from allies (RU/CH) it will likely have committed an existential error á la Assad.

Certainty about Iran's real AD effectiveness isn't possible to acquire. Only repeated tests of it will eventually tell us the truth. Iran could endure those attacks but the future is unknown.

The unpleasant truth must be faced:

WAR IS THE ULTIMATE REALPOLITIK

Force is the fundamental fulcrum of human power.
All else is illusion & luxury that sublimates under adequate pressure. Morality does not factor in to realpolitik exercised through force. Nor does law.
Anyone who does not speak in these terms is lying to themselves. State power is not the aggregation of people power. State behaviour is not the aggregate of nor synonymous with the behaviour of people.

Any pundit who cannot operate on the reality vector of "might makes right" is either in error or consciously lying.

Inventing equivalency reasons for how they want things to be/play out, only for events to not happen like that at all is literal proof of their incapability.

Compare what actually happened and what Scott Ritter said was the reality of the situation — Iran had to either negotiate or be attacked — with this:²³

For this reason, Iran should demand that any future JCPOA nuclear negotiation/agreement in the region must include ISRAEL, as well as Iran. Either both countries surrender their current or future nuclear weapons under P5+1 style guarantees. I believe Iran would accept this option, however, it's not clear Israel would accept any transparency - and therein lies the core problem. Failing that option, then Iran should be allowed to have nukes just as Israel does. Reciprocity, fair and square. If both countries held *declared* nukes it might reflect the off-set of the Pakistan-India nuclear situation. Given the choice, it's certain that all countries in the region would prefer NO nukes in both Israel and Iran - so naturally that would be the first preference.

Moreover, to truly realize a nuclear-free Middle East, then the United States should remove all of its nuclear weapons from the region - including those stored at Incerlik Air Force base in Turkey.

Patrick Henningsen, April 2025

The above²⁴ fails to establish exactly what negotiating leverage Iran had at the time (01/04/25 2.5 months before Israel attacked) to make any demands that involved a third party, let alone Israel and its illegal nuclear arsenal that it will never admit to and therefore cannot be subjected to negotiations. Thus, it's totally impossible for Iran to make such demands even now, because Israel is not yet in a terminal position. There remains one or two critical force escalation steps that could involve regional or global nuclear war before that occurs. Also, this “solution” is in favour of proliferation on a relativist basis that excuses or tolerates breaching the NPT by signatories. This had no end because the argument then just scales from “Israel's got nukes so Iran can have them” to “they have nukes so we all can have them.” This is the total opposite of what anyone should be seeking to achieve globally, but the active maintenance belligerence of USIS, driven by two different aspects of narcissistic messianism and growth of the warfare economy, runs totally counter to disarmament.

This “solution” appears to completely ignore realpolitik and the application of force, which has come to the fore again two months after Henningsen dismissed Ritter's analysis that's been proven right in the Israel-Iran conflict.

Trouble is, before force was applied to Iran, it could never have negotiated for what Henningsen proposed was a solution. Now force has been applied to Iran, the problem set has changed:

• USIS has no credibility, integrity or trustworthiness, so Iran will not negotiate with it for the time being;

• Iran has questioned the IAEA's core integrity and cut ties with it. It's likely that it will run through a sequence of actions that later includes or culminates in withdrawal from the NPT or uses that threat as leverage;

• There will be more kinetic engagement, including USIS-UK insurgencies, drone operations and covert ops inside Iran, similar to UK-Ukrainian insurgency operations that try to trigger the enemy into overreaction.

• Arguably, Iran remains in a Catch 22: if it surrenders its nuclear capability it loses a huge chunk of its sovereignty and it takes a massive economic hit compared to the future the government wants, which is to be nuclear powered and to maximally export its oil.

Under these circumstances the dynamics of demanding anything still comes down to leverage, which resolves to force in whatever forms. Just laying out “this is how it should be” statements as if they are solutions, without actually saying how they are imposed, implemented and enforced is just a form of fantasy. The Israelis will never admit to their nuclear programme or negotiate with it.

Only if whatever Iran claims to have regarding Intel on Israeli nukes is utterly damning and gets shown to the world with the threat of force will things change on that front. It's unlikely to happen. The international community has never effectively, directly confronted Israel on its nukes and it never will.

If Iran retaliates:

• inadequately, it will be attacked by both the USA & Israel in open war;

• adequately, it risks nuclear attack by either or both.

USA Israel have declared this to the world & executed all of this plan, hence today Iran has been illegally attacked under a false pretext that involves both the USA and Israel working in self-admitted, unethical union.

No one opposed it effectively despite it being repeatedly declared over decades and multiple times since October 7th, 2024.

Might makes right.

Iran did respond adequately and it resulted in a strike profile that could've delivered tactical nukes onto the three nuclear sites (if the mission happened the way it's claimed), so there's a sort of hybrid outcome here.

Wishing it was different, opining on moral grounds, saying "no fair, Israel has nukes so Iran should too" is what children do.

Adults deal with reality.
War is a game for adults.

Children play in between stories, arguing which story is best as adults redraw maps with bombs.

This just goes back to the point about dealing with reality, not with fantasy that cannot manifest because necessary circumstances or leverage do not exist.

A METHOD FOR COMBATING THE STRATEGY OF TENSION:

Direct, maximal removal of doubt through the sustained application of multifactoral force. If one cannot or will not exercise that option, one has been beaten by an enemy whom one did not truly know or understand, having never adequately tested oneself against them.

What form & duration that direct, oppositional force takes hinges on one's prepared intentional means to act & therefore sustain it & endure.

If one faces genuine existential threat, nothing can be off limits.

If combat proxies & allies share that belief they should be mobilized maximally in support.

If Axis of Resistance forces do not act maximally against their singular, existential enemy, then one must question what the real truth is?

• No effective Resistance able to intentionally fight to win?

• "Existential threat" isn't real enough?

• Someone's a paper tiger (see Syrian axis)?

• A given strategy & will has proven to dominate enough to placate/nullify 2.4bn Muslims with >10m OpFor?

• Gross strategic error?

Indeed, recon by force has removed some ambiguities. Some of Israel's covert operations in Israel have been exposed, but probably not all of them. Iran will have to decide how it deals with these internal threats. Conventional arsenals have been pitted against each other at much higher intensities and the verdict appears to favour Iran on a power and attritional basis provided that:

1. Its arsenal is as large as claimed

2. It's willing to broaden its strikes across the region in the face of widening USA involvement in the next round of combat

3. It will use non military options

4. It solidifies and enhances ally support and involvement e.g. greater Russian military partnership and armament supplies from any source

5. Bolstering of AD

6. Increased strategic ambiguity about its capabilities, including nuclear (see cessation of IAEA cooperation)

Of course, the above will ultimately increase tension and thereby drive USIS towards another pretext to commence the next round of combat. The key counter or restraint is the risk to which Israel is exposed, what it can endure and how much of it can be sacrificed. That also connects to the question of whether Israel would resort to a nuclear strike in the region if sufficiently pushed. No one knows the answer to that question, which is the ultimate regional ambiguous tension for which there's only one ultimate counter: the destruction of the Israel's nuclear threat. This will always have to be an active military objective as combat cycles continue.

Israel seemed to increase Gazan offensive actions by cutting the internet feed and stepping up operations under the cover of the Iranian attacks. After it had ceased fire on Iran, it then restarted bombing Lebanon. No overt multifront engagement initiated by the axis was announced firing True Promise 3, although Ansar Allah did state that would recommence Red Sea shipping denial operations.

From this, VST presently concludes that Iran: did not reach true existential threat; tried to calibrate its attacks to air defence and in light of the effectiveness of Israeli attacks; modulated its weapon selection (increasing power over time as AD was depleted) and struck a range of military intelligence and economic targets; didn't exercise an overt Command & Control authority over other axis forces, suggesting that it doesn't have that direct a control.

AIR POWER

If Iran's response does not effectively, specifically target all Israeli airfields including civil, it is not adequately defending itself.

Runways must be nullified ahead of individual aircraft. Failure to do this now is guaranteed failure, faulty tactics & analysis.

Iran has woeful air power by modern standards. Strategically & tactically it cannot allow air threats to operate in range of its borders.

It must destroy every surrounding runway.

If it does not, it betrays physical or analytical military weakness and will pay dearly.

It likely has porous air defence irrespective of the best components of it (S300 and possibly 400). It cannot depend on critical max AD performance. It must defeat/diminish air power threats at source maximally to create capacity & endurance on an ongoing basis.

If Israel projects air threat using non stealth F15/16s + drones, the volume of jets + ordnance (6-8 weapons per jet) could saturate the Iranian AD network, before the F35s arrive.

Iran must constantly suppress Israeli & US air power at source via any means including targeting tanking in other nations.

Properly testing the F35 against any OPFOR AD & losing (especially vs older/low end AD) is a huge strategic blow to the US/IS military economy agenda.

Iran can maximize those odds via all of the above.

Now war has begun, mercy must evaporate. The only way to win is unrelenting will & arms to dominate.

The fog of war (read: restricted factual information) prevents us from knowing exactly what the air power balance was, but the above has some merit nonetheless.

Use of stand off weapons supports our position on the need to destroy air power at source and engage air threats outside Iran's borders. Syria, Iraq and Azerbaijan wouldn't necessarily enter combat because Israeli air power was being shot down in their airspace.

Iranian claims to have downed up to four F35s have been denied by Israel and convincing proof has not been presented by Iran, who stands to win major propaganda victories if it did.

Whether the weapons Iran used were accurate and voluminous enough to execute effective and lasting runway denial are unknown but Israeli airbase areas were reportedly targeted. Akrotiri in Cyprus was an obvious potential target given it was a staging point for USIS support and possibly used by Israeli aircraft, but things didn't escalate that far.

The attack on Al-Udeid, Qatar was performative and pre-agreed. It doesn't represent a true strike.

What's been foregrounded is Iran's conscious choice to limit ally military support (Russia's treaty). We think this is a serious strategic mistake in the medium to long run and expect this to change. Putin has not expressed a reluctance to give more support, he only described Iran's sovereign decisions to date and the Iranian's unwillingness to accept more help. Given its enemies’ stated intent and recent events, Iran should protect itself and everything that BRICS et al represents by shoring up military allegiances along every axis. It is reportedly advancing Chinese fighter jet deals but that's a medium to long term outcome. Importation of more AD systems should increase.

Conclusion

In hindsight, we think our initial thoughts on Iran were pretty accurate.

We expected a guaranteed escalation pathway for USIS because the entire engagement was manufactured by it as a full-on attack on Iran in the hope that it could trigger an internal collapse through the application of targeted force and insurgency (Which Path to Persia?)

We subsequently said there was a USIS risk calculus of how much damage Iran could do to Israel before allied support arrived and/or objectives in Iran could be met. That calculus was actively tested. Israel's endurance has been demonstrated effectively and it must now consolidate on a joint basis with “daddy”.

In this round, we think Iran fared better than expected and Israel continues to be overextended. Why Iran didn't continue isn't truly clear. There are likely several factors that are fuelling the punditry speculation income streams between now and the next round of fighting.

Phase Shift is the order of the day. Nothing is over.

1. https://x.com/Zlatti_71/status/1936753043304825077?t=WSsI7L1InINEwipDTvykSg&s=19

“According to Windward Maritime AI™, Iran is jamming GPS signals amid the conflict with Israel, which has already led to the distortion of coordinates of more than 1,000 vessels per day. AIS (automatic identification of vessels) systems are massively “showing” vessels on land: in Iranian ports, in the deserts of Oman, and sometimes even “hanging” near Dubai. Among the victims are 27 VLCC supertankers in the last 24 hours alone.”

2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconnaissance_by_fire

3. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2025-Unclassified-Report.pdf

4. SKY NEWS: Iran "will hit Israel harder next time" after almost 200 missiles were launched at Israeli military bases. He said the latest attack "was only the tip of the iceberg".

“If the Israeli regime case strike back at Iran we will hit them much harder next time. We will beat them into submission.”

5. https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/06/25/750144/true-promise-iii-which-israeli-military-intel-industrial-sites-iran-target

True Promise III: Which Israeli military, intelligence, industrial sites did Iran target

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/iran-launches-18th-wave-of-operation-true-promise-3-using-shahed-136-drones-against-israel/articleshow/121985743.cms?from=mdr

Iran launches 18th wave of Operation True Promise-3 using Shahed-136 drones against Israel

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-22/ty-article/at-least-23-wounded-in-tel-aviv-haifa-central-israel-after-25-missiles-fired-from-iran/00000197-9644-df53-a5d7-d74496790000

Iran Fires Over 40 Missiles at Israel, Wounding 27, After U.S. Strikes on Nuclear Sites

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-18/ty-article/wsj-israel-running-low-on-arrow-interceptor-missiles-used-against-iranian-attacks/00000197-82c8-d303-ab9f-c6f87aa20000

Israel Running Low on Arrow Interceptor Missiles Used to Defend Against Iranian Attacks, WSJ Reports

6. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-security-council-meet-sunday-over-us-strikes-iran-2025-06-22/

“It was not immediately clear when the council could vote on the draft resolution. Russia, China and Pakistan have asked council members to share their comments by Monday evening. A resolution needs at least nine votes in favor and no vetoes by the U.S., France, Britain, Russia or China to pass.

The U.S. is likely to oppose the draft resolution, seen by Reuters, which also condemns attacks on Iran's nuclear sites and facilities. The text does not name the United States or Israel.

“Military action alone cannot bring a durable solution to concerns about Iran's nuclear program,” Britain's U.N. Ambassador Barbara Woodward told the council. “We urge Iran now to show restraint, and we urge all parties to return to the negotiating table and find a diplomatic solution which stops further escalation and brings this crisis to an end.””

7. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-multi-billion-shekel-price-tag-iran-war

“Israel faces multi-billion shekel price tag from Iran war. The conflict with Iran has also left hundreds of Israelis facing a housing crisis. The Ministry of Defence projects that expenses will rise by an additional 25 to 30 billion shekels in 2026. As a result, Israel’s budget deficit in the first five months of 2025 was 15.9 billion shekels ($4.56bn), Israel's Ministry of Finance stated. The deficit had risen to 8.5 percent of GDP by the end of September but has narrowed since then to around 5 percent of GDP.”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/war-costs-put-israels-public-services-at-risk-of-collapse-says-former-central-bank-head/

May 2025: “War costs put Israel’s public services at risk of collapse, says former central bank head. Without policy shift, social welfare won’t meet needs of population; quality of life and economic growth will be harmed, says Karnit Flug, ahead of this week’s IDI conference”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-economy-in-grave-danger-as-gaza-war-drags-on-economists-warn/

August 2024: “Israel’s economy in grave danger as Gaza war drags on, economists warn. Experts say economy cannot survive much longer as fighting with Hamas has stalled tourism, forced small businesses to shut, slowed down shipping and raised deficit”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/bank-of-israel-to-sell-30-billion-to-stop-shekel-collapse-during-gaza-war/

October 2023: “Bank of Israel to sell $30 billion to stop shekel collapse during Gaza war. Central bank says will operate in market in order to ‘moderate volatility’ in shekel exchange rate, will also provide dollar liquidity through SWAP mechanisms of up to $15 billion”

8. https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/07/01/houthi-red-sea-shipping-attacks-maritime-security-defense/

“Why Can’t the U.S. Navy and Its Allies Stop the Houthis? Months of intense Western naval operations have failed to secure the Red Sea.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-most-intense-combat-since-wwii-against-houthis-experts-2024-6

“The US is facing its most intense battle since World War II against Yemen's Houthi rebels, experts say.

"We're sort of on the verge of the Houthis being able to mount the kinds of attacks that the US can't stop every time, and then we will start to see substantial damage," Bryan Clark, a former Navy submariner and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute told the Associated Press.

“If you let it fester, the Houthis are going to get to be a much more capable, competent, experienced force.””

9. https://www.newsweek.com/us-missile-defenses-heavily-depleted-shielding-israel-report-2091465

“During the recent Israel-Iran conflict, the United States used an estimated 15 to 20 percent of its global THAAD missile interceptor stockpile, incurring unprecedented costs exceeding $800 million, according to the Bulgarian Military News and Military Watch Magazine outlets.”

Tom Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) told The Wall Street Journal during the conflict: “Neither the U.S. nor the Israelis can continue to sit and intercept missiles all day. The Israelis and their friends need to move with all deliberate haste to do whatever needs to be done, because we cannot afford to sit and play catch.”

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/from-90-to-65-israels-interception/?amp

“From 90% To 65% — Israel’s Interception Rate Goes Down Big Time; IAF Expert Decodes Why IDF’s SAMs Are Leaking Missile. However, if the interception rate has indeed declined, it could be the result of a combination of factors: limited interceptor stocks, advances in Iranian missile technology, and operational constraints. Without specific data on Arrow 2 stockpile levels or confirmed interception failures, it is too early to attribute any drop solely to a shortage of Arrow 2 interceptors. That said, given multiple reports hinting at shortages—and considering the challenges involved in manufacturing Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 interceptors—there is legitimate cause for concern for Israel.”

10. https://tvbrics.com/en/news/iran-china-rail-link-strengthens-trade-and-reshapes-regional-connectivity/

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/first-freight-train-from-china-wheels-into-iran/?amp

11. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/25/why-iran-conflict-has-raised-new-questions-about-iaeas-credibility

Why Iran conflict has raised new questions about IAEA’s credibility

Despite claiming that Tehran does not have the capacity to make nuclear bombs, the IAEA may have ratcheted up tensions.

https://thecradle.co/articles-id/31286

IAEA an 'instrument for Israel,' secret documents seized by Iran reveal

Iranian media says the documents show that Tehran’s confidential letters to the IAEA were passed on to Israel

https://thecradle.co/articles/iran-teases-treasure-trove-of-sensitive-israeli-nuclear-documents

Iran teases 'treasure trove' of sensitive Israeli nuclear documents

The announcement comes as the IAEA board is preparing to issue an 'anti-Iran' resolution at an upcoming meeting

12. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_iran_strategy.pdf

13. https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/report/us-israel-strategy-special-relationship-strategic-partnership-2029-2047

1. The U.S.–Israel relationship is one of America’s most strategically vital partnerships, anchored in shared democratic values and common threats.

2. The U.S. should elevate its relationship with Israel to a strategic partnership, which requires changing the security and commercial paradigms in the Middle East.

3. Just as the U.S. once phased out financial aid to Israel, so, too, should the U.S. transition Israel from a military financing recipient to a security partner.

14. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-27/ty-article-magazine/.premium/idf-soldiers-ordered-to-shoot-deliberately-at-unarmed-gazans-waiting-for-humanitarian-aid/00000197-ad8e-de01-a39f-ffbe33780000

'It's a Killing Field': IDF Soldiers Ordered to Shoot Deliberately at Unarmed Gazans Waiting for Humanitarian Aid. IDF officers and soldiers told Haaretz they were ordered to fire at unarmed crowds near food distribution sites in Gaza, even when no threat was present. Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed, prompting the military prosecution to call for a review into possible war crimes ■ Netanyahu, Katz reject claims, call them 'blood libels'

15. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/16/gaza-missing-war-israel-detained/

Thousands of Gazans have gone missing. No one is accounting for them.

https://www.newarab.com/news/gaza-aid-sites-risk-chaos-used-justify-killings-report-says

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2024/gaza-numbers-killed-displaced-scale/

16. https://www.foxnews.com/video/6374707072112

Hegseth says Operation Midnight Hammer took ‘months and weeks’ of preparation

17. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/22/full-speech-donald-trumps-address-to-nation-after-attack-on-iran

“I decided a long time ago that I would not let this happen. I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.

We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel.”

18. https://x.com/21WIRE/status/1934357721106546994?t=vH3JFrkvFSegIZknNJEPCQ&s=19

“How desperate are Israel to pull USA into their war with Iran? They need buy-in from American public and Washington’s clueless Western allies. Would they on things? Look…”

https://x.com/ejmalrai/status/1933063770416308486?t=Qm0LnM6QFTgy8nJGqNoKlw&s=19

“If the United States were ever to go to war against Iran—a scenario that remains highly unlikely given the current geopolitical landscape—it would be an action to please Israel, one of America’s closest allies in the Middle East.

The U.S.-Israel relationship is deeply rooted in shared strategic interests, historical ties, and domestic political considerations, particularly the strong influence of pro-Israel lobbying groups in Washington. Any U.S. military action against Iran would certainly be justified as a response to perceived threats to Israel’s security and the ridiculous "Israel has the right to defend itself".”

https://x.com/GUnderground_TV/status/1932904299358474560?t=VnjEKn5TXY_3W_WYeMdiIg&s=19

'Netanyahu is determined to make use of his control over Washington...to establish permanent Israeli political hegemony over the region, to create greater Israel.'

-Col. DougAMacgregor on GU. Now Israel is actively preparing to drag the US into a war against Iran”

https://x.com/AbbyMartin/status/1934108324871671905?t=u2-aLL0icigTpovwq6qD7A&s=19

“Trump wasn’t dragged into war. The US uses Israel as its lunatic attack dog for regime change. It supplies their weapons and intel then shields them from consequences. The US war machine is the engine fueling the bloodshed”

https://x.com/afshinrattansi/status/1932903422941868507?t=Y4t5YeWOeCr1p_uOvlpb1g&s=19

“REMINDER: Prof. Jeffrey Sachs:

‘Netanyahu is a dark son of a b*tch. Netanyahu has gotten the US into endless wars…the Iraq War came from Netanyahu…he’s still trying to get us to fight Iran to this day’”

19. https://x.com/RealScottRitter/status/1936245604763513254?t=VdjkUYEG3ZGmxDvQwJlyng&s=19

I wrote about this last October in an article published in Consortium News (consortiumnews.com/2024/10/20/sco…)

This is why I said repeatedly that Iran was making a huge mistake posturing as a nuclear threshold state.

Yes, Tulsi said—correctly—that Iran had not made a political decision to pursue nuclear weapons capability, nor had they taken measures to acquire a nuclear bomb.

But the reality is that since last year Iran has been weeks away from having a nuclear weapon if the political decision to acquire one was made.

The President and Israel have picked on this interpretation of the data, not the one the media picked up following Tulsi’s March Congressional testimony.

This is a very complicated topic fraught with politicized nuance.

But the bottom line is Iran doesn’t have a bomb, and doesn’t appear to be trying to make a bomb.

https://x.com/RealScottRitter/status/1905653313254600739?t=V_RBpS1oXAAK0198dVW-jA&s=19

Free will is a double edged sword. And a nation’s survival is its own business. Iran has taken itself down a path where its nuclear program can rightly be characterized as being one short step from becoming a nuclear weapons program. Unless steps are taken to reverse this, Iran is at risk of being assessed by the United States as representing an existential threat to both the US and its regional allies. This will likely result in military action designed not only to eliminate this threat, but also the Iranian government. A regime change, nation killing action. I’m not promoting such a course of action. In fact, I condemn it. But the needle of reality will not be moved by my objections. Iran has the opportunity to avoid this outcome by putting its nuclear program on the negotiating table. Iran has refused to do this. Which is its right as a sovereign state. I can’t care about Iran’s future more than the Iranians. Iran made its bed.

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/10/20/scott-ritter-irans-bomb-is-real-and-its-here/

20. https://x.com/i/spaces/1DXxyqNbRoPxM

05:55

21. https://rumble.com/v6rwwe1-ask-the-inspector-with-scott-ritter-ep.-254-streams-live-on-april-11-at-8-p.html

47:11

22. 13/06/25 (2 days before)

“This is a strike that's designed to create the circumstances under which the United States will have no choice but to intervene Israel's side, which is necessary if you're going to bring an end to the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

15/06/25

Talks about the Israeli attacks being joint venture with US planning and deception assistance.

17/06/25

Starts talking about Trump going to war and breaking previous promises.

23. https://x.com/21WIRE/status/1906890294995370007?t=U2tDcYHwTVc7quct6S4J4Q&s=19

24. https://x.com/21WIRE/status/1906890294995370007?t=qmDH7okkhtIDCgCWsTyI6Q&s=19