Behind the well-crafted scenarios, the fog of misinformation, and the howling of cruise missiles and fighter jets, a deeper strategic truth is hidden: the US has failed in Iran. Trump announced that there will be a deal—an agreement with Iran immediately—but Iran declares that no agreement exists, and the theater continues. In practice, Trump is desperately looking for a way out of his failure amidst the World Cup, fearing public backlash. Iran has defeated the US militarily and will also defeat the US diplomatically; no agreement will be signed that does not fully satisfy Iran... and Trump realizes this. In reality, they failed completely in Iran after being led astray by the bloodthirsty state of Israel. At the same time, American generals frightened Trump: "If you attack Kharg, we will have 25,000 dead."
Denis Kitronovich (Mossad): Only Israel wants the war with Iran to continue, Israel has been isolated
Denis Kitronovich, former head of the Iran desk at Israeli military intelligence, stated: "Following Trump's reports, which align perfectly with his approach from the time of the war, I must clarify one point: Israel is almost the only state that wants to return to a military confrontation with Iran. Neither the US government nor the Gulf states, including the UAE, are willing to return to war with Iran. From their perspective, the previous campaign was enough. This stance is expected to have significant consequences in the future. The Persian Gulf countries understand very well that they should not push Iran under any circumstances. It seems that all regional players (except Israel) are far from concluding that war is the solution to Iran's problem."
CNN: US generals warned Trump about Kharg Island, 25,000 Americans would be killed... and the plans collapsed
CNN claims that American officials and top military leaders told Trump that the operation to seize Kharg Island would lead to heavy American casualties—up to 25,000 soldiers dead and wounded. Due to these calculations, the Pentagon and the White House have viewed any action in this case as an "endgame" option: a last resort with a high cost to change the balance of the war. CNN claimed that US military plans to seize Kharg Island had been in progress for months but had been repeatedly postponed because the operation was considered too dangerous, a senior Pentagon official and two administration officials told CNN. Officials told Trump that such an operation would likely require a significant number of ground troops and lead to heavy American casualties. The US military has previously conducted several major airstrikes on military facilities on Kharg Island but has deliberately avoided hitting the island's energy infrastructure in these attacks.
The new American attacks are insidious...
The new round of military aggression is not a repetition of the 40-day war. It is something more insidious, more desperate, and ultimately more fragile. This time, the American war machine relies on calibrated military pressure, psychological warfare, and controlled escalation to force Iran into a political settlement on American terms—without entering a full-scale war that it no longer seems willing or able to sustain. The limited strikes aim to force Iran to enter into a political agreement designed around American strategic requirements.
The American war machine is trapped
The recent attacks against southern Iranian regions—following weeks of simmering tension over the Strait of Hormuz and the wider regional confrontation—reveal a critical reality: Washington still wants to pressure Iran but is desperately seeking to avoid the catastrophic consequences of a full regional war that it knows will not turn in its favor. The American war machine is trapped between multiple dangerous options, none of which offer a clear path to victory or even a way out that saves its prestige from this deepening quagmire. To understand why, we must analyze the anatomy of the latest attacks, decode the psychological warfare that accompanies them, and examine the strategic impasse that led Washington to choose what can only be called the "fourth way"—a path that does not lead to Iran's surrender, but to America's own strategic exhaustion.
Echoes of War: The same logic, a different trap
Let us be clear about what recently happened in Iran. The ongoing US attacks in southern Iran are not random or disorganized acts of violence, but carefully calibrated instruments of coercion. The goal is not necessarily the degradation of Iranian military resources or sending a message, but forcing the Islamic Republic of Iran into an agreement to be concluded in Washington, on Washington's terms, at Washington's preferred time.
Failure to impose a specific agreement
The latest round of aggression is not—at least not directly—about so-called "regime change." It is about imposing a specific agreement. The United States is not seeking to occupy Iran this time and has neither the disposition nor the military capacity for such a thing. Instead, the primary goal is to force Iran to breach all its red lines: an agreement that would impose unreasonable restrictions on Iran's peaceful nuclear program, limit its regional influence, and legitimize a new order of American hegemony. This strategy relies on short, local, carefully calibrated attacks designed to increase pressure on Iran without crossing the threshold of a full war. The underlying calculation is that constant military and psychological pressure may eventually force Iran to make concessions that a large-scale imposed war could not achieve.
Time no longer works in America's favor
While the 40-day War aimed at the annihilation of Iran, the latest attacks aim to shackle it. If you cannot destroy your enemy, you try to put them in a cage. And if you try to put them in a cage with limited strikes, you admit that full-scale war has been abandoned because the US knows the outcome: failure.
The theater of lies: Psychological operations as a weapon
The most striking feature of the latest round of American aggression is not just the military dimension, but the massive psychological warfare campaign that accompanies it. No analysis of the evolving events would be complete without addressing the torrent of disinformation that preceded, accompanied, and followed the recent attacks. Extensive, intense, and deliberately misleading psychological operations remain an essential component of the American war, essentially because other options have failed miserably.
Trump deliberately spreads lies
Trump claimed—falsely, as Iranian officials immediately clarified—that Iranians had contacted him to beg him to end the war. No such contact occurred. He claimed that the confrontation had achieved all its military objectives—a typical refrain after every American attack, from Vietnam to Syria. And as always, the US had no casualties, despite growing evidence proving the opposite, that the Americans suffered heavy losses. These are not minor rhetorical inventions, but deliberate tactics of deception and lies, strikingly similar to American psychological methods during the Third 40-day War that began on February 28, 2026.
If you cannot win the real war, you try to win the story
The goal is twofold: first, to create an illusion of American invincibility and Iranian desperation; second, to blur the information environment so that independent assessment becomes impossible. If you cannot win the real war, you try to win the story. But here lies the irony: these attacks have become so common, so exaggerated, that they no longer fool anyone with strategic awareness. The Iranian leadership and the public have seen it many times before. When every American attack is declared a complete success, the term loses all meaning. And when every Iranian response is dismissed as negligible, the enemy is blinded to the asymmetric retaliation that inevitably follows.
The "fourth way" emerges
This brings us to the essence of the matter. Why would the United States choose a limited, local, short-term military confrontation, knowing very well that Iran has demonstrated, repeatedly and dynamically, its ability to react with catastrophic results against hostile bases and interests throughout the region? The answer lies in a strategic calculation of desperation. The US war machine faces a classic impasse, with four options—none of which suits it.
A. The first option is full-scale war. The Pentagon's own war games consistently show that a comprehensive war with Iran would be catastrophic: hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of casualties, regional conflagration, global oil crises, and no guarantee of regime change. This option is essentially suicide for any American administration.
B. The second option is the acceptance of an agreement on Iran's terms. This is politically impossible for Washington. After decades of "maximum pressure" policy, the sudden acceptance of Tehran's terms would be a humiliating defeat, signaling the irreversible collapse of American deterrence from the Persian Gulf to the Pacific.
C. The third option is the continuation of the status quo. This means Iran maintains its de facto control over the Strait of Hormuz, naval blockades persist, and the region simmers in an eternal low-intensity war. For the United States, this is also a form of slow-motion suicide—a steady erosion of what remains of its credibility, economic power, and military prestige.
D. The fourth option is the limited, local, incomplete confrontation. We saw this recently. A strike here, a retaliation there. Manageable escalation and plausible deniability. The hope is that through measured, controlled violence, Iran can be forced to accept an agreement it has already rejected at the negotiating table.
Confession of weakness...
The fact that America chose the "fourth option" constitutes, paradoxically, a confession of its weakness. It proves three things beyond any doubt: 1) Time works against the United States. Iran's steady and significant nuclear progress, growing regional alliances, and strategic patience surpass the US attention span. 2) Another full-scale war is not a desirable option for a series of reasons—economic, military, political, and reputational. 3) And most critically, the current draft agreement for ending the imposed war clearly favors Iran. Iran has already extracted concessions on sanctions, inspections, and regional architecture. The agreement, as currently shaped, is unacceptable to Washington. Hence the resort to reckless violence.
Asymmetric responses and Iran's unexploited leverage
But here lies the fatal flaw in America's "fourth path." The entire strategy is based on a single, fragile assumption, which is that Iran will respond in predictable, proportional, and non-escalatory ways. History—including the recent past—suggests the opposite. Iran has already proven, in previous confrontations, that its reactions can be unpredictable, asymmetric, and catastrophically effective. When the enemy's risk increases, when even a "limited" operation triggers a response that burns more than the attack, then this fourth option quickly becomes ineffective, void, and useless. Consider what Iran has not yet done and what it could do at any moment in the future. Withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) remains an option on the table. The same applies to intensifying the terms for ending the imposed war—demands that could include the total lifting of all sanctions, binding guarantees against future attacks, and even reparations for damages.
These are strategic levers that Tehran has deliberately kept in reserve.
Furthermore, Iran has established a new rule in regional equations: the hostile front is now considered unified, and the Resistance Front is equally unified. The enemy understands that investment in limited confrontation may not only fail to yield the desired result but could, based on this new equation, leave the American side in a much worse position than before. Every strike against Iran is now met with coordinated responses from Tehran, Baghdad, Sana'a, and Beirut. The days of isolated retaliation and strategic restraint are over.
The exhaustion of American options
Let us take a step back and evaluate the broader arc. Iran has achieved remarkable success in discrediting American threats. War? It faced two wars in less than a year, and each time Iran emerged stronger. Sanctions? The exhausting "maximum pressure" campaign failed to bring Iran to its knees. Blockade? Iran continues to control the Strait of Hormuz despite the US naval robbery. The enemy's options have been exhausted. They no longer possess their previous effectiveness. And now, even the limited option of confrontation shows signs of fatigue. Asymmetric responses will now become even more critical. Iran's unexpected and unpredictable behavior regarding the agreement could change the equation overnight.
Iran still possesses many options it has not yet presented.
Thus, the fourth path is a path that leads to nowhere. It is the choice of a power that cannot move forward, cannot turn back, and cannot stand still. The US military is hitting Iran now because it has run out of good options. But a bad option that is repeated only gets worse. And when Iran's unpredictable reactions increase the risk beyond tolerance, even this last trick will collapse. The US will be forced to accept an agreement on Iran's terms or admit that the era of military coercion in the Persian Gulf is over. In either case, Iran holds all the cards, while the US arsenal of threats... simply ran empty.
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments