Irans neue Führer gehen Risiken ein, die ihre Vorgänger gemieden haben | CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/10/middleeast/iran-strike-israel-retaliation-strategy-analysis-intl
Irans neue Führer gehen Risiken ein, die ihre Vorgänger gemieden haben | CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/10/middleeast/iran-strike-israel-retaliation-strategy-analysis-intl
12 Kommentare
Iran’s strikes on Israel this week were some of its most audacious attempts yet to redefine the boundaries of a confrontation that for decades has largely been fought through proxies, covert operations and carefully calibrated retaliation.
By targeting Israel in response to attacks in Lebanon, Tehran appeared to be signaling that its red lines no longer stop at its own borders – and that its leaders are ready to take greater risks.
Iran responded with a series of calibrated retaliatory strikes against US and Gulf targets, while warning that if diplomacy failed it was prepared to resume the war and expand it beyond the Persian Gulf, potentially threatening shipping routes stretching from the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.
It’s a bold strategy for a country whose leadership is so, replaceable.
I seems rather obvious no? Iran has lost its grip on Syria. Hamas is barely a shadow of its former self. Houthis are not that responsive for whatever reason, It still has Hezbollah but Hezbollah is being dismantled harshly. It can’t offer much in the way of funding in the current conditions.
Literally the only thing it can do in hopes to save Hezbollah and maintain a threatening presence on Israels borders is to pressure USA to stop Israel through amping up the risk factor/pain factor in the region again.
This is desperation.
They hold escalation dominance now, with control of the strait and the US/Israel unable to stop their missile strikes. Hezbollah’s drones are taking a heavier toll than expected on the IDF. And the rest of the world isn’t willing to help, finally.
Iran tried to play nice. They signed the Nukes Deal and elected liberals in two landslide wins. Then Trump double-crossed them. I don’t think Iran wants to play nice again.
I think I should point out that not taking risks still got them sanctioned, attacked by surprise, bombed, and now blockaded. It doesn’t seem to be much of a risk to be bolder if your enemies are still going to attack you even if you don’t take those risks. Trying to put Iran’s back against the wall as Trump did may have been a bad idea. People fight a lot more when they feel like they are being cornered, particularly when they have reasons to think that their enemies are not as strong as they looked at first.
But in that case, it looked more to me like a political maneuver. Israel made a political mistake by negotiating a ceasefire with the Lebanese government and then not respecting it by bombing the Lebanese Army and then Beirut. Iran then attacked Israel to show that they were willing to defend at least Lebanon’s capital against attacks by Israel, politically undermining a Lebanese government that is hostile to them and Hezbollah, but also shown as de facto unable to defend their country from Israel’s invasion, whether through diplomacy or force.
And they also correctly calculated that Trump would prevent Israel from escalating beyond a few revenge strikes against Iran, thereby sowing discord between the US and Israel, and making Netanyahu look weak ahead of the elections in Israel. So the risk paid off, from their point of view.
Remember that the new Supreme Leader was considered dangerously militant *before* US air strikes maimed him and killed most of his family?
Gosh, I wonder why Iran is taking more risks now…. /s
What do they have to lose? They literally have the US and the entire global economy by the tail.
Even though the focus is on Iran, there’s a glaring fact that everyone seems to be ignoring: the longer this conflict goes on, it increases the option for warfare elsewhere.
That includes a European war where an emboldened Russia sees a depleted US unable to assist (fortunately, this is still unlikely since Ukraine has been able to inflict an disproportionate and incredible amount of pain and war fatigue on its aggressor), and a Pacific front. The latter being the more significant development of a continued war in Iran.
Every talks about Taiwan, but that would most likely be the very last segment of a Pacific war. If a Korean war breaks out while this Iranian conflict is still ongoing, the US would be further strained/depleted and unable to assist in other regions. This just compounds the likelihood of war everywhere else, including Japan. Bloodshed in Taiwan would be last on the agenda because of just how egregious it would be for China to spill its own blood. In fact, it would guarantee a generational insurgency from Taiwan that would require reconciliation costs that far exceed costs of a more passive, soft-power strategy.
The better option would have been to invade an at-the-moment pre-peer Japan as a show-of-force to Taiwan and the world, because let’s face it: due to historical animosity from Imperial Japan, the PRC is going to be okay with killing Japanese if it meant no war with Taiwan. If a depleted/strained US cannot assist Japan or Korea, then Taiwan folds before any bloodshed.
It doesn’t mean that the US wasn’t right for taking on Iran. It was long overdue. The problem was that we did not execute the operation as cleanly as Venezuela or even remotely at the most consequential time. The decapitation strike against Iran should have occurred before Venezuela, or at the very latest, DURING Venezuela, while there was still protestors out on the streets of Tehran who were willing to fight for a chance at revolution. We took too long and now everyone’s dead or too intimidated to organize any resistance.
Given enough runway, time-in-conflict will turn the tide against all aggressors, and its time for the US to switch to a defensive/economic posture. That means re-arming itself AND all allies to make the cost of more breakout conflicts higher.
Ensuring that Iran conflict closes out quickly as possible, regardless of the political consequences to give us the time to reconstitute arms and strengthen allies. There are more options, but that all that is contingent on a US that rearms faster than its use of arms, which I think is what we’re actually seeing now: using a political circus and a sitting President to slow down the conflict to return that ratio into our favor.
It’s embarrassing, but at this point, still the right move.
Any day now they’re going to announce that they feel they no longer want nukes because the attacks have made them feel safe & secure…any day now.
[removed]
Well when you back a regime into a corner what do you expect to happen. It’s the same reason I worry about Russia sometimes but hey like to ignore off ramps