Iran tried to dissuade Donald Trump to join the Israeli bombardment campaign with the threats of retaliation, but the reality is that their options seem limited and suffer from risks.
High Iranian accusations specifically indicate the courts and military bases of the United States as goals, despite the fact that most of the country’s deterrence has been excluded in the last days by a strong wave of Israeli attacks. Although Israel sought to put an end to response to the Iranian reaction, their attacks focused on long ballistic missile launchers. Faced with this, Iran still has a huge arsenal with short missiles and drones.
Given this threat, in recent weeks the United States took precautions, scattering their military presence in the region and strengthening its air protection in order to try to present as a difficult goal as possible.
Trump also warned of the greater participation of the United States in the Israeli war if they try to counterattack, and in recent days it began to assume that the Supreme Leader of Ayatol Ali Jamenie will be one of the goals for American bombers.
The fragility of the “resistance axis”
Another main weapon of Iran, built for decades, is his network of alliances with regional militias, its “axis of resistance”, but in recent months this has also been reduced. The vast missile arsenal of Hizbul was crushed by a wave of attacks of the Israeli Air Force last year. Moreover: Israeli planes attacked the Lebanese Shiite forces this year, exploding the alleged missile deposit in the south of Beirut in April.
The Shitsky police, supported by Tehran in Iraq, Kataib Hizbul, threatened to attack the “interests of the United States” in the Middle East in response to Washington’s participation in the support of Israel. One of his commanders, Abu Ali Al-Askari, was called to CNN, saying that the US bases in the region will “become something like Lacky Hunting Land.” The United States have up to 19 military facilities in the Middle East, eight of them forever.
Another Iranian partner, the forces of Huti in Yemen, agreed to stop the fire with the United States in May after the wave of Washington’s explosions – with serious consequences for the civilian population – although they warned that they would be considered broken if Trump took part in attacks on Iran. His messages, set as a lens, American ships in the Red Sea, something, that the Hutins did with various results in the past.
The entry of any of these militias into the war will lead to a destructive response from the United States, which was preparing for such unforeseen circumstances in those months when Israel is preparing its attack.
Place sea transport in a check
Iran also considers the opportunity to attack sea transport, which includes exploding mines, drowning boats or radiation of reliable threats to close the Ormuz Strait. It was a few minutes ago that the Iranian parliament approved its closure, although it was the Supreme Council of National Security should determine whether it is closing. This is a narrow front door to the Persian Gulf of only 55 km in some points, this is vital, since the more fifth in the world of oil supplies (20 million barrels) and most of its liquefied gas transit daily.
In recent days, Iranian politicians of the hardest wing of the regime called for the Strait to close. For Iran, this option is an advantage of concluding direct Trump costs, which leads to restoration of oil prices with an almost immediate effect of inflation in the United States to the legislative elections next year. Nevertheless, the closure will also be an act of economic self. Iranian oil uses the same route, and the closure of Ormuz means pulling the Arabic states of the Persian Gulf in conflict, which resolutely criticized the attack of the Israels to protect their own interests.
To avoid the inclusion of more opponents in the conflict or lead to a full bombardment by the United States, Tehran could also choose cold revenge at a later age. In the past, he postponed his answer to external attacks. Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Arachchi hinted at uncertain retaliation, saying that Trump’s decision “would have long consequences”.