Trump vs. Iran: strategies for victory and defeat

Isabelle Lasserre — Is the war in Iran unprecedented?
Jean-Paul Paloméros — The answer is yes. Looking back at history, I’m not sure there’s an equivalent in terms of intensity and the number of targets struck over a relatively short period. The near-total elimination of Iran’s air defense capabilities very quickly allowed the U.S.-Israeli coalition to control the airspace. This indispensable air superiority, while it made Iran’s air-ground space transparent, nevertheless ran up against the Islamic regime’s true underground strategy. It was clear that the nuclear facilities, particularly the approximately 400 kg of highly enriched uranium, were deeply buried. On the other hand, the sheer scale as well as the nature of Iran’s “buried” ballistic component undoubtedly constituted a surprise that can be described as strategic.

This ballistic component represents a genuine conventional deterrent for the Iranian regime, which directs this threat particularly toward Israel and, above all, toward the Gulf states, which are far less prepared. From an operational standpoint, this underscores the need to strike not only from a distance, not only with precision, but also at great depth. To date, the number of bombs capable of striking deep into enemy territory is limited, as is their effectiveness. No European country possesses this capability.

I. L. — What, specifically, would have needed to be done to significantly weaken the mullahs’ regime?

J.-C. P. — If coalition leaders decide to resume military operations (which is far from certain), they would need to strike the Iranian regime where it hurts most: the Strait of Hormuz, the true center of gravity of this conflict—a factor that has been entirely overlooked or sidelined in campaign planning. But such an option would certainly require the targeted deployment of special forces. We must also tirelessly continue to reduce the regime’s ballistic capabilities by attacking launch sites, as well as all components involved in missile production.

If the regime does not fall, if it emerges from this war strengthened and seen as having defeated a Western power that seemed limitless—at a time when global power centers are being redrawn—the consequences will be felt for decades to come. Iran will become the leading regional power. It will consolidate its strategic leverage over the Strait of Hormuz (which, it should be recalled, was open to free passage before this war) and rebuild its conventional deterrent based on more powerful ballistic missiles with longer ranges—in short, more dangerous ones. Under these conditions, it is hard to see what would stop the resumption of its nuclear program. This program could even be accelerated if Iran’s loyal allies, notably Russia, choose to assist it. After all, this is how North Korea became a nuclear power. And if such a scenario were to unfold, then certain Gulf states would undoubtedly be tempted to follow this path in turn…

I. L. — It is often said that it is impossible to topple a regime by relying solely on airstrikes. Is that really true?

J.-C. P. — It’s all a matter of …