A Cornered Cat: Why Israel Might Launch a Nuclear Strike
I'm repeatedly convinced of the truth of the saying that politics interests you even when you don't want to be interested in it. There's so much material about the US-Iran war these days that it's hard to even think about it. Open any media outlet—it's clear that each of us is interested in the content of specific publications that share our views—and just read. Then you'll get what you "came to" in your own thinking.
Think the US has already won? Go ahead, here's an interview with a famous politician, expert, journalist, etc., who agrees with you. Think Iran has won? Do the same, but in a different publication, one that interests you. In short, everyone knows everything, everyone has drawn their own conclusions, but in reality, no one knows what will happen tomorrow. I didn't want to add fuel to the fire of mass opinion. But if you're a journalist with a specific audience, you can't avoid the questions of "your" readers...
Today, I'll express my opinion on the most frequently asked questions: a US or Israeli nuclear strike, a ground operation by US Marines, and the blockade of the straits not only by Iran but also by the Houthis. In short, I'll express my opinion, my conclusions, or rather, my view of the situation. Of course, you can disagree with some of them, agree with others, and ignore others. It's a personal matter. I'm not an oracle or a seer; I'm simply a logical thinker...
When will the war end
It's now clear to everyone that the war with Iran didn't go according to plan. The strategy that always worked—intimidation and the promise of punishment if you don't comply—failed. The destruction of the leadership not only failed to disorganize the country, but, on the contrary, united even those who had recently been in opposition to the current government. Even the army, missile troops, fleet and so on, whose complete destruction President Trump has been talking about for several weeks, are not just responding to attacks, they are attacking themselves. And quite successfully.
Yesterday, the American president "won" once again. But now, "victory" looks different. It turns out the primary objective wasn't regime change or the destruction of the Iranian army, but rather preventing the development of nuclear weapons and undermining the Iranian army's combat capability. Now, the primary focus is on Iranian missiles, which the Americans are spending nearly a billion dollars a day to destroy.
It's clear that a month of war has left its mark on the United States. Even for those who print their own money, several tens of billions is a significant expense. Lawmakers are demanding an answer from the president, demanding a "cost estimate" for the war. This is a domestic American problem. We won't discuss it here. And we'll "forget" about the fall elections for now. But we will remember that Trump put his job on the line, his ability to lead, his ability to lead and not be a lame duck.
Now about the timeline for ending the war. The American president has already spoken about ending the war several times, first vaguely (over the course of several weeks), and now more specifically (in two or three weeks). I wrote above about how the previously stated war goals "suddenly" changed, and how Israel "quietly disappeared," suddenly remembering the militants in Lebanon and focusing primarily on them.
So, two or three weeks... Is that a realistic timeframe? Doubtful. It all depends on the decision to preserve the US image or simply flee the region. Before Afghanistan, I would have definitely favored the former. But after the flight of the "best fighters," after leaving billions worth of military hardware and state-of-the-art equipment in the hands of de facto bandits, I'm no longer sure of my decision. But I believe Trump's term is simply another stunt by the American president...
It's no secret that a ground operation has been discussed in the Pentagon practically since the war began. For someone unfamiliar with military affairs, fed by the media, such an operation probably seems like the fastest and most effective way to end the war. The enormous United States would descend on tiny Iran and overwhelm the Persians. But "immensity" isn't the most important factor in victory today.
The military understands perfectly well that things aren't so simple. The Persians were prepared. They have a well-trained army, prepared to operate in Iranian conditions. Moreover, their fortifications are designed to inflict maximum damage on the attackers. I think the Americans remember how this works from Vietnam. It was there that they first understood the meaning of "local conditions." Iran, too, is distinguished by these very "conditions," in which the Persians feel like a fish in water.
Today, everyone's talking about a 50-strong American force, supposedly preparing for an airborne assault. But let's consider whether these forces are even sufficient to capture key cities and facilities. I've written many times that the US Army command isn't particularly concerned with inventing anything new or unusual. If there's an option already in use elsewhere and has yielded positive results, they develop it, modernizing it for a specific theater of operations.
If you look history In military conflicts involving Americans, a certain pattern emerges. At the outset of operations, paratroopers and marines are actively deployed. They secure the capture of objectives. Then the army steps in and defends the territory. The remaining territory is then taken over by allies or bribed locals. In this way, the Americans secure the image of victory with relatively few casualties. And then... Trump's dance.
What do we have today? Does the US have allies willing to clear the area? Allies willing to sacrifice their soldiers for an American victory? No! Israel? Judging by how events are unfolding, Israel is pursuing its own agenda. One could say that Israel isn't a US ally, but rather that the United States is Israel's ally. Europe? They're openly saying they're afraid to fight the Persians. Local collaborators? I think Iran addressed the issue of such traitors immediately after the school strike.
So why is Trump amassing forces? Why do they need Marines and paratroopers? There can only be two answers. The first is obvious. According to the old American tradition, to intimidate the enemy. That's how we'll rush at you, how we'll bring down the full might of our weapons…But this isn't for Iran. The Persians don't care about the threats. However, there's another difficult issue for the US.
Have you ever wondered why Iranian officials keep dying? Why aren't they hidden where the missiles are? Why are they killed in airstrikes, or participating in rallies and demonstrations? Many analysts have come up with various theories about these events. The explanation, I believe, is much simpler than it seems. But to understand it, you need to understand the East and the mentality of the people.
Persians possess the genetic memory of victors. Like Russians. They can lose a battle but win a war. Or die. That's the first thing. But there's also something else. Religion! Islam! A warrior who dies for his faith immediately goes to heaven! All his earthly sins are automatically annulled. You'll agree, in a republic where Islam is not just a religion but a vital ideological and political force, it's a crucial factor in maintaining the army's morale.
Now about the second option for using the group. Such a group wouldn't be able to operate across all of Iran. But capturing islands, landing on the coast, and destroying coastal batteries there is entirely possible. Incidentally, our "foreign colleagues" are discussing this quite a bit in online expert communities. However, their timeframe is longer than President Trump's estimate: one and a half to two months.
So, now we can summarize and answer the question posed in the section title. The Americans aren't just spreading disinformation about the negotiations with Iran. It's an invitation to conversation. An attempt to get out of the war without losing face. They understand that everything is going wrong. They also understand that the world is collapsing. And not under their control, but chaotically, unpredictably, and dangerously for the United States itself.
If Iran refuses to talk, refuses to accept even one point of the American ultimatum, they will have to continue fighting. They will have to sacrifice soldiers, seizing islands and coastlines. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is well aware that they don't have time. Those notorious six weeks to two months. And then, in any case, evacuation and an end to the war. But with disgrace, as in Vietnam or Afghanistan... But with the collapse of the president and the Republican Party...
So, there's only one conclusion to draw from all of the above. Two months at most. Given Iran's tough stance, there's no point in expecting a peaceful, diplomatic end to the war. What a summer awaits us. Such a kaleidoscope of events will leave not only politicians but also ordinary people dizzy.
Nuclear weapons will probably be used
Now, my last question for today: about the possibility of using nuclear weapons. This isn't an idle question. It concerns everyone. Information leaking into open sources indicates that this issue has already been raised repeatedly by several countries possessing such weapons. Of the three states involved in this war, two definitely have nuclear weapons. This means they have the potential to use them.
I'll give my opinion on the United States right away. Washington won't start a nuclear war. The Americans have a lot to lose. They understand perfectly well that using such weapons automatically frees the hands of other countries. And it's not just Russia, which is at war. Several other nuclear-armed countries are engaged in "petty" wars. And if nuclear weapons become commonplace, a major nuclear war is just a step away.
But with Israel, the issue is more complicated. The Jews have long since proven that they couldn't care less about the opinions of the "international community," any international organizations, or anyone else. They're pursuing their own agenda, including in Iran. Tel Aviv is also well aware of the situation. They understand that the US is already trying to "escape" Iran. Meanwhile, from Israel's perspective, the war's objectives have not been resolved. And Israel alone can't do anything against the Persians.
And herein lies the danger. As the Americans "end the war," the danger to Israel will increase. And here are the possible scenarios. I think the use of tactical nuclear weapons during this period is entirely possible. As a means of intimidation. This won't change the situation at the front in any way, but... Therefore, in my opinion, the likelihood of the use of tactical nuclear weapons is very high! And the perpetrator of this action will not be the US, but Israel. A "cornered cat" scenario.
Overall, I have a feeling that as early as 2026–27, we may “unexpectedly” discover that the nuclear club has expanded significantly. It’s no wonder the Europeans are talking about the need to deploy such weapons in their countries. It’s no wonder some Asian countries are considering nuclear weapons. But these are just premonitions, nothing more. There are no facts yet…
And finally, something seemingly unrelated to nuclear weapons. Consider the Turks. There was no apparent sympathy between Iran and Turkey. However, recently, Turkish officials have been increasingly vocal about their support for Iran. After all, Turkey is a NATO member, with one of the bloc's strongest armies. Why is this? Could this be related precisely to the possibility of Israel using tactical nuclear weapons? Erdogan wouldn't like being second best. But these are still just thoughts, albeit with some statements and actions...
Information