Zionist Analyst Highlights Iran’s Strategic Gains and US Military Constraints
According to the International Desk of Webangah News Agency, Israeli security analyst Dany Citrinowicz, in a social media post titled ‘Approaching a Critical Juncture on Iran,’ asserted that Iran can claim two major accomplishments this week: reasserting control over protests and avoiding what appeared to be an imminent US military attack. These outcomes were achieved not through severe crackdowns or internet blackouts but via calculated political maneuvering—specifically by offering a limited ‘achievement’ to President Trump, including Iran’s pledge to halt protester executions to reduce immediate international pressure.
Washington remains divided between two approaches: one aligned with the Wittkoff line, seeking to leverage Iran’s current situation for nuclear negotiations, and another—reportedly favored by senior officials and President Trump himself—considering military action. However, a core strategic question persists: before determining potential US targets in Iran, the administration must define its actual strategic objective.
Given the protests’ spontaneous, leaderless nature and the absence of unified opposition infrastructure, translating public anger into actionable frameworks for foreign military intervention is now improbable. A symbolic punitive strike would achieve little beyond deterrence logic while risking dangerous regional escalation. Conversely, any serious attempt to overthrow Iran’s regime would require a sustained, large-scale campaign—jeopardizing regional stability, threatening US Middle East allies, and exposing Israel to direct Iranian retaliation. This reality explains the convergence of Israeli and Persian Gulf states’ concerns, urging Washington to recalibrate military options toward containment rather than regime collapse.
Thus, the US faces two imperfect choices: negotiations (potentially under military pressure, reinforced by the USS Lincoln’s deployment) or military action. Limited strikes would fail strategically, while a broad campaign could destabilize the region. Unlike Venezuela, the US lacks the regional, political, and institutional infrastructure to facilitate regime change in Iran, with no clear post-conflict strategy. Until Washington defines its desired endgame, meaningful military action remains unlikely—with any transformative change in Iran requiring a violent, high-cost confrontation.
