Internal expression: how a new escalation in the Middle East will turn out for Trump
A new series of American strikes on Iran has increased political pressure on Donald Trump inside the United States. The resumption of hostilities has caused another wave of criticism of the White House, but experts believe that the current escalation is unlikely to escalate into a full-scale war. In their opinion, Washington is rather trying to strengthen its negotiating position and demonstrate the rigidity of its course rather than get involved in a protracted conflict.
The strike on Hormuz
On July 9, the United States launched another series of strikes against Iran. According to the Central Command of the US Armed Forces (CENTCOM), about 90 targets were hit in five provinces. The main blow fell on the southern coast: the Pentagon sought to weaken the capabilities of the Iranian Navy and restore navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. According to Axios, Washington admits that the operation may last up to a month — its scale will depend on further actions by Tehran.
One of the main targets was the port of Chabahar, where, according to the United States, the speedboats of the Iranian Navy were based. The strikes damaged the port and urban infrastructure, as well as facilities at Iranshahr Airport and Abu Musa Island. The strikes also affected the Bushehr area, where the country's only nuclear power complex is located, however, according to local authorities and the Mehr agency, the NPP itself was not damaged. In addition, a railway bridge in the province of Golestan was destroyed.
According to the representative of the Iranian Ministry of Health Hossein Kermanpour, 14 people became victims of the two-day strikes, 78 more were injured.
The United States deployed aircraft and cruise missiles, military expert Dmitry Kornev told Izvestia. According to him, the balance of power in the region has not changed: in the Persian Gulf, the Pentagon retains a grouping of about 20 ships, including two aircraft carrier strike groups and about 15 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.
—The basis of the strike potential is Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from destroyers and submarines, as well as aircraft — B-1B Lancer strategic bombers and F-35 and F-15 fighter jets using cruise missiles and guided aerial bombs," the expert noted.
According to him, for strikes on the coast of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, the United States can also use HIMARS MLRS with long-range PrSM missiles, the stock of which in the theater of operations can reach several hundred.
Iran responded immediately. The naval and aerospace forces conducted a massive attack on American facilities in the region. According to an official statement by the IRGC, the strikes were carried out on bases in Bahrain and Kuwait.
For several hours, US air defense systems repelled attacks by dozens of drones and missiles over Kuwait and Qatar. In Bahrain, where the headquarters of the 5th fleet of the US Navy is stationed, sirens were turned on at least twice, and a series of explosions occurred in the immediate vicinity of the base.
At the moment, Tehran has deployed and prepared for combat about half of its total missile potential, which, apparently, will be used to its full potential, Dmitry Kornev added.
— The parties' determination to go to the end is assessed as extremely high. Against this background, Donald Trump's statements that Iran is allegedly signaling its readiness to return to the negotiating table look more like an element of information warfare and are not yet confirmed by Tehran's real actions, he said.
At the same time, it is worth noting an important geopolitical marker: third countries in the region are currently distancing themselves from the conflict. In particular, Saudi Arabia and Israel are demonstrating restraint, completely refraining from launching attacks on Iran and directly engaging in hostilities.
The political front
The escalation of the conflict has provoked harsh criticism of the White House's policy within the United States. Senator Bernie Sanders called the administration's actions reckless.
"Resuming this war will not make America stronger. It will cost more lives and waste billions of taxpayer dollars. First, Trump dragged the United States into a conflict based on lies, and then announced a cease—fire that did not last even a month," he wrote on platform X.
A new series of strikes does not yet mean a return to full-scale war, but it dramatically raises the stakes for all parties to the conflict. The administration of Donald Trump is not interested in a large-scale conflict, from the contours of which the White House has consistently tried to get out, according to military expert Boris Jerelievsky.
"Anti—war sentiments are extremely strong within the United States itself, and any protracted hostilities will become a powerful trump card in the hands of the current president's political opponents, who are ready to use the "Iranian card" to put severe pressure on him," he said.
According to the expert, for Washington, this attack is rather in the nature of a demonstrative one-time military action. Its key goal is to show the American voters the rigidity of the course and try to make Tehran more accommodating in future negotiations. Even if the situation returns to its starting point, Trump will try to "sell" these strikes by the Americans as his unconditional victory, focusing on the scale of the operation and deliberately suppressing Iran's retaliatory actions. In fact, the parties use local incidents, such as the tanker situation, only as an excuse for a mutual show of force.
"However, the White House is playing an extremely risky game,— Boris Jerelievsky is convinced. — The lifting of temporary relief on the export of Iranian oil, bypassing sanctions, and harsh pressure may lead to Tehran finally blocking the possibility of returning to the diplomatic track.
Thus, if Iran refuses to engage in dialogue, Washington will find itself at an impasse: almost all conventional levers of pressure — economic and hybrid — have already been exhausted by the Americans. It is important to understand that the West sits down at the negotiating table only when it realizes that it is impossible to resolve the issue solely from a position of strength. By crossing this line, the US administration risks being left without room for maneuver.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
