While armchair strategists argue over who’s beating whom — America crushing Iran or Iran humiliating America — and breathlessly ask whether World War III has already begun, we suggest taking a breath. Panic is a poor analyst. Cold calculation is a better ally of truth.
The story of the missile strike and the hurried withdrawal of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln from Iran’s shores showed the main thing: there will be no large-scale ground war. Not tomorrow. Not the day after. There will be exchanges of strikes, loud statements, triumphant reports — and a gradual cooling-off. As soon as each side figures out how to sell a “great victory” to its voters, the fire will subside.
Peace? No. But the apocalypse is canceled as well.
What awaits us is more likely the Venezuelan scenario. After the abduction of Maduro, the system there did not collapse. Faces changed — the ideology remained. And when the current “hawks” leave the White House, the pressure will leave with them. Concessions extracted under threat will quietly dissolve.
In Iran’s case, there may not even be that. Trump and Netanyahu will report a “tough response,” “restored deterrence,” a “new American strength” — just in time for elections. Two politicians who have grown tiresome to their voters will stage a sprint to the finish line. But riding dead horses does not take you very far.
The practical result? Almost zero.
The strategic one is far more serious.
The strike on Iran shattered an unwritten taboo: leaders of sovereign states are no longer considered untouchable. In the past, they were eliminated covertly, through intermediaries, with plausible deniability. Now it is done almost demonstratively. That is the real “new normal.”
The abduction of Maduro was a warning sign. A missile attack on Khamenei signals a system. The open physical elimination of political leadership is becoming an instrument of policy. Not the last resort — but an acceptable method.
When a hegemon breaks the rules, others learn quickly. If a superpower acts this way today, regional players may try tomorrow. And the day after — anyone with sufficient resources and desperation. And yes, in such lists of “potential precedents,” the names of those who today consider themselves sheltered under allied umbrellas might well flicker too — say, Vladimir Alexandrovich. Though he is not the subject today.
Let’s call things by their proper names: extracting concessions through fear is terror. Whatever flags it hides behind. The irony is that the global cult of counterterrorism was built for decades largely by the United States.
But terror is a poor negotiator. It may force a temporary pause, but it does not create stability. More than that, it legitimizes itself. Once a method is deemed acceptable, it will be used again — and not necessarily by those who first employed it.
It is quite possible that, by playing this game, Trump and Netanyahu are not strengthening their positions but opening the door to an era in which political liquidation becomes the norm. On a global scale.
And in such eras, the first victims are not always the ones originally targeted.
Those who sow the wind reap the whirlwind. History repeats this stubbornly and without emotion.
