American strikes in Iran: when Israel proves that he can do nothing without the United States

Beyond the slogans on the military power of Israel, the strikes carried out against Iranian nuclear sites on the night of Saturday to Sunday reveal an implacable strategic reality: Israel cannot defend themselves. And when its technological limits appear in broad daylight-as in the incapacity to strike the underground installation of Fordo-it calls on its traditional godfather: the United States.

This time, Donald Trump himself took care of the dirty job. In a beautiful exercise in geopolitical allegiance, the American president mobilized the armed forces of his country to target three crucial Iranian sites: Ispahan, Natanz and Fordo. The latter, deeply buried under the mountains, was out of reach of Israeli missiles. But not American strategic bombers, which Trump made available without the slightest hesitation.

For years, Tel Aviv has been playing the unilateral deterrence card. But since it is a question of facing an opponent of weight like Iran, the illusion collapses. Without the United States, Israel has neither the strategic depth, nor the necessary logistics, nor the sufficient long-range capacity to attack the most sensitive installations of the Islamic Republic.

Clearly: the myth of an autonomous and invincible Israeli army is no longer standing. To neutralize Fordo, it was necessary to call on the big arms of the US Air Force. And to justify the operation, it was enough for Trump to recite the endless verse of “peace in the Middle East”, even though this assault will only kiss the region more.

Trump at orders Netanyahu

The American president threatened Iran with new strikes “if peace is not quickly reached”. A hypocritical and absurd threat: how to claim to defend peace by bombing civilian nuclear installations? How can we believe that one can avoid a regional war by multiplying provocations and by lining blindly on the Israeli strategy of permanent confrontation?

Donald Trump has once again behaved as the simple performer of the desires of Tel Aviv, relegating American interests to the background of a war that does not say his name. A politically risky choice: this decision could strongly cut it from part of its electoral base, especially among the republicans isolationist or anti-war, who see in this type of intervention an expensive and unnecessary gear for the United States.