Senaste nytt
WAR & PEACE

Analysis of the War Between Iran and Israel-US: Iran Can Not Be Conquered

publicerad 21 juni 2025
- av News@NewsVoice
John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris, and Glenn Diesen
John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris, and Glenn Diesen.

Political scientists John Mearsheimer, Alexander Mercouris, and Glenn Diesen analysed the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran, focusing on Israel’s recent surprise attack described as a ”decapitation strike” and the feasibility of achieving a decisive victory.

Summary: The discussion provided a detailed examination of strategic, military, and geopolitical dimensions, concluding that neither Israel nor the U.S. is likely to achieve a clear victory due to Iran’s resilience and the complex dynamics involved.

Israel’s Strategic Objectives and Feasibility

John Mearsheimer outlined three primary objectives for Israel: eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities, achieving regime change, and securing unconditional surrender. He argued that these goals are unattainable, citing several reasons.

First, eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities is challenging because, even if facilities like Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant are targeted, Iran has the scientific and industrial capacity to rebuild.

The panel noted that Iran’s nuclear know-how and experience make it difficult to permanently dismantle its program, potentially buying only a year or so of delay.

Second, regime change is unlikely without a ground invasion, which is not being considered. Historical examples, such as World War II and the Iraq War, demonstrate that air power alone cannot effect regime change, as seen in the failure of bombing campaigns to overthrow regimes without boots on the ground.

Third, unconditional surrender is dismissed as unrealistic, given Iran’s history of resilience, particularly during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, which showed that countries like Iran do not easily capitulate when attacked.

Alexander Mercouris supported this view, stating that Israel has miscalculated Iran’s ability to fight back, leading to a war of attrition that Israel is ill-prepared to sustain. He highlighted that Israel’s air defences are being overwhelmed by Iranian ballistic missiles, with reports indicating that Israel is running out of interceptors.

The economic strain is also significant, with newspapers suggesting that if the war continues for even a month, Israel’s economy could be wrecked, facing disastrous consequences. Diesen added that Israel’s initial shock-and-awe campaign, while effective in catching Iran off guard, did not lead to a decisive defeat, and Iran has since regrouped and retaliated, further complicating Israel’s position.

U.S. Involvement and Domestic Constraints

Diesen emphasised the strong domestic opposition in the U.S. to another Middle Eastern war, with opinion polls showing that only 16% of Americans favoured intervention, 60% were opposed, and 24% were undecided. This opposition is particularly significant among Trump’s political base, including figures like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who have vocally opposed involvement.

The panel suggested that Trump, facing pressure from his advisors and base, is showing signs of hesitation, potentially backtracking from earlier rhetoric supporting Israel’s actions.

Mercouris noted that Trump’s initial support was based on mainstream media narratives of a quick victory. Still, as the war unfolded, the realities of Iran’s resilience and the logistical challenges became apparent, leading to a shift in perspective.

The U.S. is also facing resource constraints, with military assets already committed to other conflicts, particularly in Ukraine. The panel discussed how the U.S. has had to redirect air defence systems and interceptors from Ukraine to Israel, highlighting the limited industrial capacity to replenish stocks quickly.

Mearsheimer pointed out the experience with the Houthis, where Trump promised a quick victory but abandoned the campaign after 30 days due to the depletion of precious ammunition, much of which is needed in East Asia to contain China.

This precedent suggests that a protracted war with Iran, requiring significant resources, is a non-starter for the U.S.

Limitations of Military Power and Historical Context

The panel extensively discussed the limitations of air power in achieving strategic objectives, drawing on historical examples. Mearsheimer noted that during World War II, the U.S. and its allies pounded Germany and Japan with air campaigns.

Still, regime change required ground invasions, with the Soviets entering Berlin and the Japanese only capitulating after atomic bombings and an invasion threat. Similarly, in Iraq, air power alone did not topple Saddam Hussein; a ground invasion was necessary.

The panel argued that without a ground invasion, which is not being considered for Iran due to its size, population (92 million), and vast territory, neither Israel nor the U.S. can achieve regime change or eliminate Iran’s nuclear program.

Mercouris added that targeting fortified facilities like Fordow is particularly challenging, with reports suggesting that even 30,000-pound bombs may not penetrate deep enough, and Iran’s air defences, potentially more effective than reported, pose significant risks to aircraft.

Risk of Nuclear Proliferation and Escalation

A significant concern raised was the risk of nuclear proliferation. The attack on Iran, occurring during negotiations and under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran has signed and is inspected under, may push Iran to accelerate its nuclear program.

Mearsheimer argued that the lesson for Iran, and potentially other countries, is to acquire nuclear weapons for deterrence, as seen with North Korea’s relative security compared to Iraq and Libya, which were invaded partly due to lacking nuclear deterrents.

The panel noted that Iran’s fear of future attacks, coupled with the U.S. and Israel’s actions, could lead to a cascade of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, undermining the NPT.

Diesen highlighted that Trump’s argument that Iran should not even have a civilian nuclear program, guaranteed under the NPT, further erodes the treaty’s credibility.

The panel also expressed concern about escalation, particularly the possibility of Israel using nuclear weapons out of desperation. Mearsheimer suggested that if Israel feels cornered and the U.S. does not intervene, it might consider nuclear options, though he hoped U.S. pressure would prevent this.

There is also a risk of false flag operations, such as Israel attacking a U.S. military asset and blaming Iran, to drag the U.S. into the conflict, given Israel’s perceived ruthlessness when up against the wall.

Geopolitical Complications and Involvement of Other Powers

The discussion touched on the involvement of other global powers, particularly Russia and China, which have strategic interests in supporting Iran.

Pakistan to join Iran against Israel/US?
Pakistan to join Iran against Israel/US? Image: RT

Mercouris noted that Russia sees Iran as a critical ally in Western and Central Asia, and Putin has already offered a defence agreement, indicating potential support if the war prolongs.

China, while initially supporting efforts to end the war, might see benefits in keeping the U.S. bogged down in the Middle East, diverting resources from the Pacific, as seen with historical support for Vietnam.

The panel suggested that both countries could supply Iran with intelligence, weapons, or other support, complicating U.S. and Israeli efforts.

The broader geopolitical implications include the impact on U.S. credibility, particularly with Russia.

Mearsheimer and Mercouris discussed how Trump’s actions, including the surprise attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities shortly after attacking Russia’s nuclear deterrent, undermine trust.

Diesen noted that Russian lawyers and civil society figures, even at conferences on international law, are criticising their government for being too soft on the U.S., suggesting growing scepticism.

This loss of trust could push Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea closer together, forming a bloc against the U.S. and Israel.

Likely Outcomes and Diplomatic Solutions

The panellists agreed that the current trajectory is unsustainable for Israel. The most probable outcome is an ”ugly ceasefire” mediated by the U.S. Mearsheimer suggested that this could happen within weeks, with the U.S. pushing both sides to halt the war, allowing Israel to portray it as a minor victory while blaming the U.S. for the ceasefire. Iran sees it as a victory for withstanding the attack.

Glenn Diesen added that Iran is in a strong position, able to absorb more hits and launch missiles back, potentially emerging stronger if a ceasefire is reached, restoring its deterrent and deterring future attacks.

However, the panel noted challenges in diplomacy, with trust shattered between Iran, the U.S., and Israel.

Mercouris suggested that a revised JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) might be the best way to end the war and keep it at an end, but Israel’s opposition to such deals makes this problematic.

The panel advocated for involving third parties like Russia and China in negotiations, given their influence over Iran, but acknowledged the difficulty in rebuilding trust after the recent attack.

Economic and Military Strain on Israel

Mercouris highlighted the economic consequences for Israel, with its economy facing disaster if the war continues, and the depletion of air defence missiles, making it vulnerable to Iranian attacks. Mearsheimer noted that Israel’s sensors are going to great lengths to hide the extent of damage from mainstream media.

Impact on U.S. Credibility and Broader Conflict Risks

The U.S.’s vacillating stance has further damaged its credibility, particularly with Russia, which may impact future diplomatic efforts. The panel expressed concern that the conflict could spiral out of control, drawing in other regional powers and potentially leading to a broader war, especially with Russia and China supporting Iran.

Conclusion

The discussion provided a comprehensive analysis of the Iran-Israel conflict, highlighting Israel’s strategic missteps, the limitations of military intervention, and the broader geopolitical risks.

The panellists emphasised the need for a diplomatic resolution to prevent further escalation and mitigate the potential for a wider regional conflict. However, they acknowledged the significant challenges in achieving this, given the current mistrust and strategic dynamics.

  • Israel’s Objectives: Eliminate nuclear capabilities, regime change, unconditional surrender; all seen as unachievable.
  • U.S. Involvement: Strong domestic opposition (16% favour intervention); resource constraints limit engagement.
  • Military Limitations: Air power alone cannot achieve regime change; ground invasion not planned.
  • Nuclear Proliferation Risk: Attack may push Iran to accelerate nuclear program, risking regional arms race.
  • Global Powers’ Involvement: Russia, China, and Pakistan may support Iran, complicating the conflict; potential for broader war.

 

AI analysis by Grok AI, and edited by T. Sassersson


News@NewsVoice
news@newsvoice.se
NewsVoice is an online news and debate channel that started in 2011. The purpose is to publish independent news, debate articles and comments as well as analyzes.

Du kan stötta Newsvoice via MediaLinq