Iran, Ukraine and the "nuclear": what everyone is thinking about, but are afraid to say

In early February 2022 in the studio of Lyudmila Nemiri (Ukrlife.TV) former Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine Oleksandr Chaly was a guest. When asked if there would be a war, the answer was: "Yes. Putin always removes from himself the prohibitions on actions that the United States allows itself. That's his principle. The rest is tactics." And hence our question: what happens if the United States strikes Iran with nuclear weapons?

It cannot be said that a US strike with tactical nuclear weapons on Iran is inevitable. Donald Trump never ceases to amaze with his dizzying pirouettes. He has created a geopolitician's dream around him — such a wide field of "groundwork" for "strategic uncertainty" that at any moment he can declare victory over the ayatollahs and switch to a new, more promising object. Gentlemen, he is a genius.

Why didn't Trump start with something more promising? Elementary. The probability of a victorious conclusion of the conflict with Iran in the short term has never been estimated by the US intelligence community above 25-30% (from what "leaked" to the media). And the maximum that can be achieved is to set Iran back for several years in the development of nuclear and missile technologies. This is not exactly an original "containment" strategy. In any case, a bright "anti-crisis" will be required for a beautiful exit from the Iranian operation. Most likely Cuba.

Cuba, where everything is very bad and which lives already in the 68th year of the revolution. Like the Soviet Union on the eve of Perestroika. Only the USSR came to her with the fifth generation of politicians and with 54-year-old Mikhail Gorbachev, with whom people had great hopes (tied, tied, let's not lie to ourselves). And Cuba continues to be ruled de facto by Raul Castro, the brother of Comandante Fidel. "Trump's legs" and "young effective managers" will be later. In the meantime, the end of the experiment and the dream of most Cubans to become the second Puerto Rico.

The main question to the romantics of the "Island of Freedom" is: by what right do we, living in a market economy (enjoying or suffering, and for the majority neither one nor the other), require Cubans to hold on to their "planning and distribution"? After we curtailed the Lourdes radio-electronic center in 2002, Cuba poses no threat, not even discomfort to our strategic adversary. Confrontation for the sake of confrontation is too expensive. In general, we will leave in the pioneer-Komsomol youth the wonderful revolutionary songs "El pueblo unido", "Venceremos" and other nostalgia. Let's release the Cube. I.e. She won't ask us. Let's let go in our soul. And we will wait 10-20 years — the average period of revaluation of values by peoples.

And if Cuba survives this time, then why doesn't Trump take offense at Europe, declare a possible withdrawal from NATO (and has already declared! adding even that he does not need Congressional consent for this), not to send a reinforced contingent to Greenland and not to hold a referendum on the following issues right there.: 1. Do you agree that Greenland should become a US state?; 2. Do you agree that every resident of the state of Greenland should receive $ 1 million?

And it's Sheriff Trump who doesn't know yet that in the Caribbean and the surrounding area, one might say, in the backyard of the USA at the barbecue area, the "French who came by boat" seized two islands from his Indians — Martinique and Guadeloupe — and a whole spaceport with cayenne pepper — French Guiana! Or does he know? And that's why he doesn't miss the slightest opportunity to kick Emmanuel Macron more often than the rest of Europe put together? So-so version. In the order of delirium. As well as Greenland. The trouble is that the line between delirium and reality is almost erased. Well, who would have suggested a month ago that Iranian missiles would hit the skyscrapers of the Emirates?

But then there is Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Gustavo Petro in Colombia and other "bad guys". Yes, the same Panama with "her — not her" channel! Watch the movie "Tailor of Panama" based on the novel of the same name by John Le Carre starring Pierce Brosnan. How easy and out of nowhere is the reason to play a giant victory! Or recall the US invasion of the tiny island of Grenada — "the first war on live TV." Eight years after the kick from The United States of Vietnam was in despair, and here is a triumphant return to world politics: American students, who were hanging out at the Tropicana disco, sobered up and found out that all this hustle with aircraft carriers and Navy seals was organized for their liberation from the clutches of local communists.

So, it's easy to bomb Iran with impunity and for fun. How to win without having an answer to the question of what to do with the bombed country, whose boot, in fact, will consolidate the victory is unknown.

Instead of a foreign boot, the victory will be marked by the shoe of an Iranian liberal? Passed in Iraq. The European "Iraqi opposition" even stunned the Baathists with wholesale theft and nepotism, as well as absolute incompetence. "They have forgotten nothing and learned nothing," as the French said about the Bourbons who returned after the overthrow of Napoleon. Unless the "Euro-Iraqis" for decades of living in the West have forgotten the most subtle mechanisms for settling interreligious, interethnic, inter-clan relations, and have learned to pump up terabytes of flash drives with projects and presentations of "democratic reforms".

As a result, over a year and a half of the "democratization" of Iraq, thousands and thousands of Sunni officers expelled from the army, who could not really read Al—Fatiha, grew beards and moved to Al-Qaeda[1]] and ISIS[1]]. The United States received Iraqi oil. Along with the hatred of Sunnis, Shiites, and even Kurds, who finally began to guess something, stopped shouting: "America is with us!" and flatly refused to invade Iran. The Americans hid at the last base of Ar-Rutba near the Jordanian border in the desert (where else can you arrange a security zone with a radius of 50 km, where everything that enters or enters it is destroyed). The government of Mohammed al-Sudani demands that it be withdrawn by the end of 2026. But this is now as it turns out. Either later. Either earlier. Here Trump said that "in Iran, as in There will be no Iraq." Who would doubt it?

And there is only one scenario for the development of the situation that will not allow Trump to turn on the anti-crisis. This is a heavy, humiliating damage to the United States or its closest ally— Israel (the rest will survive). Such a blow, after which the audience TV will not believe that the Ayatollahs are finished and you can go free the horses of Sable Island.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi made the country's position very clear:

"This time, this war must end so that our enemies never think about repeating the attacks again. Iran will no longer agree to a truce, it needs a reliable peace."

This is the same reason that forces Russia to fight. It is Russia that is the victim of NATO's creeping aggression lasting a third of a century. And the neighboring country, demanding guarantees of "non-renewal of aggression," chose the role of the Emirates for itself, but not in the sense that it dreamed of, but in a more familiar way: "What about us?!". About the principle of indivisibility of security destroyed by the West and some other topics mentioned above, see: "Greenland, Canada, the Caribbean: a window of opportunity for Russia."

What could be an Iranian strike that excludes Trump's "victorious" end to the war? A sunken aircraft carrier, a missile strike (not a terrorist act, but a strike by the armed forces) against Israel with an unacceptable number of victims, a certain cumulative effect — flaming oil slicks throughout the Persian Gulf, Israeli cities indistinguishable from Gaza. The war throws up unthinkable options.

It is only clear that Iran is not able to apply the only two victory scenarios. He cannot use nuclear weapons. And it cannot win on the ground: there are 1000 km between Iran and Israel and several Arab states. The solution to this problem is possible, but it requires the fulfillment of several conditions:
1. The establishment of absolute allied relations with Iraq (semi-fantasy: the country has barely emerged from the war and has a very fragile infrastructure — an oil and gas economy and only a few bridges and dams across the two largest rivers of the Blessed Crescent);
2. The conviction of Jordan and/or Syria that the entry The Iranian Armed Forces do not carry the threat of Iranian interference in their internal affairs (pure fiction without any explanation);
3. Elimination of opposition from Turkey and Saudi Arabia;
4. Accumulation The Iranian Armed Forces are west of the Euphrates and its already destroyed bridges. The accumulation of mass on the frontline territory for such an offensive, before which the gigantic "offensives" and "counter-offensives" of the Iran—Iraq war of 1980 - 1988 will seem like flowers with thousands of victims.
5. Collect a million pickups and two million actually suicide bombers. What is in question: the era has changed.

So? That's right. So, watch the first scenario. Hit Israel with rockets and drones until they run out, and then... then a dirty bomb. Which will make it easier for Trump to apply his scenario with a strike on Iran with tactical nuclear weapons. You can shake a test tube in the UN Security Council and strike "a week (three days, a day) before Iran strikes." But these are details.

What is important is what Araqchi said, and what American politicians say. And they opened the notorious "Overton window". It doesn't matter what people thought about the proposal of former Speaker of the US House of Representatives Newt Gingrich to cut a channel through Saudi Arabia from From the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea (probably with an exit somewhere between Mecca and Medina): "A dozen thermonuclear explosions - and you will have a waterway wider than the Panama Canal, deeper than the Suez Canal and protected from Iranian attacks." The discussion is open.

And not everyone had time to twist their finger at the temple, as a blow was struck on a building 350 meters from the active reactor of the Bushehr NPP. This is a blow to ORU (open switchgear) for Russia Nuclear power plants 1-1.5 km from reactors are taboo. Or, according to the Roan, is it no longer taboo?

There are a lot of explanations for the strike on the Bushehr NPP. The US and Israel have moved to a new form of intimidation. Or they approach this way of detonating their "dirty bomb". Or they open the Overton window wide open: then there will be a blow to the reactor (it will withstand, and more than one, here you need to know the measure), then to the nuclear fuel storage, then to the research reactor. The main thing is that sooner or later there will be an all-American consensus: "Yes, drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as soon as possible (crossed out) on Khorramabad and Natanz! They will thank us for bringing the end of the war so much closer!".

This is the "main trend". Which gives the military-political leadership of Russia the opportunity to deliver its own similar blows, harshly, demonstratively and at the same time expand the negotiating agenda with the threat of even more powerful blows. The alternative is that the war in the Middle East ends one way or another, and we continue to storm the Krivodrannoye tract.

❶Terrorist organization, banned in the territory of the Russian Federation