What the US and Iran do next could be even more momentous

For decades, the United States and Iran carefully avoided crossing a dangerous red line in a direct military confrontation.

An American president after the other prevented himself from deploying his military power against the Islamic Republic for fear of flowing the United States in the war of the potentially the most perilous Middle East of all.

Now, the commander -in -chief, who has promised to be a president of peace, has crossed this Rubicon with direct military strikes on the nuclear sites of Tehran – the most consecutive decision to date to the second mandate of a president who has proud to break all the old rules.

It is an unprecedented moment causing an alarm in capitals around the world.

Iran’s next movement could be even more important. Its 86 -year -old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who would close in a bunker, spent almost four decades playing with caution with a long match against his most powerful enemy to protect his most important asset – the Islamic Republic.

If he does too little, he will lose his face; If he does too much, he could lose everything.

“Khamenei’s next movements will be the most substantial not only for his own survival, but for the way he will do in history,” explains Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East program and North Africa at Think Tank, Chatham House.

“His poisoned chalice is potentially more powerful than that that Khomeini drank in 1988,” she continues, referring to the reluctant decision of the first revolutionary leader of Iran to bitterly accept a cease-fire in the devastating war of Iran-Iraq.

Over the past ten days, intense Israeli strikes have inflicted more damage to the Iranian chain of command and military material than his eight -year war with Iraq, which still throws a shadow in Iranian society.

Israeli attacks have eliminated many people in the front ranks of Iranian security forces as well as the main nuclear scientists. The entry of America into this conflict has now increased pressure.

The body of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), founded in the aftermath of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, warned with challenge the reprisals against the United States which would leave it with “lasting regrets”.

But behind a strong war of words are urgent calculations to avoid a calamitous calculation error.

“It is not a war that Iran wants,” said Hamidreza Aziz, of the Middle East Council on World Affairs. “But we already see arguments by supporters of the regime that, whatever the extent of real damage that the United States could have inflicted, the image of Iran as a strong country [and] As a regional power, has been so radically shaken [that] This requires an answer. “”

However, each response is risky. A direct attack on one of the 20 American bases in the Middle East, or in the more than 40,000 American soldiers, would probably trigger major American reprisals.

The closure of the Hormuz Strait, the strategic navigable track for a fifth of global oil traffic, could also turn against the Arab allies in the region, as well as China, the main client of Iranian oil. Western naval powers could also be attracted to protect this major “strangulation point” and avoid significant economic shocks.

And what Iran had considered its “forward defense”, its network of proxies and partners in the region has all been weakened or annihilated by Israeli assaults and assassinations during the last 20 months of war.

It is not clear if an acceptable threshold exists so that Iran is seen to return the fire without provoking the anger of America, which would allow both sides to withdraw from the edge.

This tortuous relationship was tested at least once before. Five years ago, when President Trump ordered the assassination of the commander of the IRGC Qasem Soleimani with a drone strike in Baghdad, much feared that it stimulated a vicious spiral. But Iran has telegraphed its counterattack through Iraqi officials, targeting American base sections that have avoided killing American staff or causing significant damage.

But this moment is much larger.

President Trump, who had repeatedly expressed his preference to “conclude an agreement with Iran” rather than “bombing hell” now seems to be firmly in the corner of Israel. He described Iran as “the Middle East intimidator”, determined to build a nuclear bomb – a conclusion not shared by previous American information assessments.

Intelligence teams now analyze in detail the results of what the Pentagon says it is the “biggest B-2 operational strike in American history”. He inflicted “extremely serious damage and destruction” on Iranz’s main nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow.

Only “Bunker-Busting” bombs could enter the installation of the Fords buried deeply in a mountain.

President Trump now urges Iran to “come in peace”.

But Iran now considers the United States diplomatic path as a surrender too. Friday, in Geneva on Friday, where the Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Arabhchi met his European counterparts, a difficult message was transmitted that Washington expected Tehran to reduce his nuclear enrichment to zero.

It is a request that Iran rejects as a violation of its sovereign right to enrich uranium within the framework of a civil nuclear program.

He now considers the diplomatic efforts of President Trump, including five mainly indirect talks of talks led by his special envoy Steve Witkoff, as well as an elaborate deception.

Israel sparked his military campaign two days before the sixth cycle of negotiations in Muscat. The United States entered the war two days after President Trump said he wanted to allow a two-week window to give diplomacy a chance.

Now he says he will not come back to the negotiating table while the Israeli and American bombs are still falling.

“It was not Iran, but the United States that betrayed diplomacy,” Araghchi said at a press conference in Istanbul. During this, he met foreign ministers of the organization of 57 members of the Islamic conference which condemned “the assault of Israel” and expressed their “great concern concerning this dangerous escalation”.

Iran has also tried to highlight an attack on its territory which violates the United Nations Charter as well as warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency that nuclear installations should never be attacked, “whatever the context or the circumstances”.

European leaders also call for an urgent de -escalation and a path to brake the nuclear program of Iran by mediation, not on missiles.

But they also reiterate that Iran cannot be allowed to acquire a nuclear bomb. They consider the enrichment of uranium to 60% of Tehran, in an easy range of 90% of weapons, as a disturbing indication of its intentions.

“Iran is likely to minimize damage to its sites and insist on the fact that its nuclear program has survived these unprecedented attacks,” said Ellie Geranmayeh, deputy chief of the Middle East program and North Africa at the European Council for Foreign Relations.

“The United States can exaggerate the damage too much, so that the Trump can win the military victory without being trained in other strikes.”

President Trump will be drawn in one direction by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, whose formidable own forces will continue to attack Iran to inflict even more damage, triggering even more Iranian Salvos.

But the American chief is also under pressure at the house on the part of the legislators who say that he acted without authorization from the congress, and the supporters who believe that he has broken his promise to keep America out of long wars.

And this moment is widely supposed to concentrate the spirit of the decision-makers of the hard line of Iran on how to shrink the deterrence while they try to avoid being targeted themselves.

“It’s the big irony,” warns Ms. Geranmayeh. “Although Trump sought to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat, he has now made Iran much more likely that Iran becomes a nuclear state.”

Main image: A demonstrator has a portrait of the supreme chief of Iran. Photography credit: Reuters

Independent BBC is the house on the website and the application for the best analysis, with new perspectives that question the hypotheses and deep relationships on the biggest problems of the day. And we present stimulating content of reflection through the sounds of the BBC and Iplayer too. You can send us your comments on the independent section by clicking on the button below.