Executive SummaryAccording to Middle East analyst Nader Mansour, the ceasefire between Iran and Israel following the June 2025 conflict should not be interpreted as de-escalation. Rather, it represents a strategic pause—a temporary mask for rearmament, repositioning, and the continuation of long-term pressure. In Mansour’s assessment, diplomacy functions less as a path to compromise and more as a tactical cover for coercion. To understand the true dynamics at play, one must move beyond the headlines of the twelve-day war and examine the broader, decades-long U.S.–Israeli strategy toward Iran: a strategy oscillating between containment, degradation, and war, but consistently aimed at neutralizing Iran as a sovereign and effective state actor.Beyond a Conventional ConflictMansour argues that what is unfolding is not a simple military confrontation. Instead, the United States and Israel are pursuing a long-term project to hollow out the very concept of Iranian sovereignty. The goal is not merely to deter Iran, but to render the notion of Iran as an independent state functionally meaningless—leaving a country that may exist on paper, but lacks the capacity to defend its interests or shape its regional environment.Central to this strategy is a division of labor:The United States designs and maintains the strategic architecture—sanctions, economic pressure, diplomatic isolation.Israel acts as the operational arm—conducting assassinations, cyber operations, and limited but highly targeted military strikes.The Strategic Roadmap: From Containment to RollbackFor nearly two decades, Mansour notes, U.S. policymakers have debated how to deal with Iran. Internal discussions in Washington reveal that the objective has extended beyond behavioral change toward a more ambitious aim: altering the nature of the Iranian state itself. The available tools have remained consistent:Diplomatic persuasionMilitary forceInducing internal regime changeWhat changed in June 2025 was the activation of a long-theorized military option. The war was not accidental; it reflected the implementation of a modernized version of the “Osirak option”—a reference to Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s nuclear reactor. While a full-scale invasion of Iran has long been deemed impractical, American and Israeli strategists have argued that limited air campaigns targeting nuclear and military infrastructure were feasible and effective.The End of Proxy Wars and the Breach of SovereigntyThe June 2025 events unfolded almost precisely according to this scenario. Israeli surprise strikes on Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow, combined with the assassination of Iranian scientists and commanders, represented a direct assault on the core pillars of Iranian state power. When the United States entered the conflict on June 22, bombing nuclear sites and intercepting Iranian retaliation, Mansour argues that a historic threshold was crossed:the era of proxy warfare ended, and the era of direct violations of sovereignty began.The physical destruction of centrifuges, however, is only the most visible layer. Beneath it lies a deeper strategy often described as “regime change”, but more accurately characterized as state hollowing—the systematic erosion of the government’s ability to govern.Hollowing the State from WithinThis approach combines:Economic suffocation through sanctionsMilitary pressure through strikes and assassinationsExploitation of internal political and ethnic fracturesThe objective is to produce a state that is administratively and socially ungovernable. Mansour suggests that the twelve-day war accelerated this process, pushing Iran further toward internal exhaustion rather than outright military defeat.Divergent Strategic Clocks: Washington vs. Tel AvivA critical friction point lies in the different strategic timelines of Israel and the United States.Israel’s clock runs fast. For Tel Aviv, time is measured in minutes. Any Iranian recovery is perceived as an immediate existential threat. Israel seeks not to manage the threat, but to eliminate it entirely.America’s clock runs slower. Washington—under a returned Trump administration—must account for global trade, energy markets, and military overstretch. A full-scale war with Iran risks global economic shock, regional escalation, and a protracted ground conflict.This divergence creates a dangerous dynamic. Mansour warns that Israel may deliberately provoke crises that drag the United States into wars it would otherwise avoid. The final days of the 2025 war, when U.S. forces intervened directly, illustrate how quickly Washington can be pulled in once missiles are in the air.From Nuclear Containment to Missile NeutralizationWith Iran’s nuclear infrastructure severely damaged, the focus has shifted. Mansour points to Israeli strategic planning—particularly Prime Minister Netanyahu’s late-2025 agenda—which signals a new priority: Iran’s ballistic missile program. The underlying doctrine is not defensive security, but absolute dominance—the preemptive elimination of any capability that could even theoretically challenge Israeli military superiority.This, Mansour argues, goes beyond deterrence. It amounts to the systematic erasure of a sovereign state’s strategic capacities.Erosion of Sovereignty and the Illusion of VictoryThe cumulative effect of sanctions, assassinations, and bombardment is the gradual erosion of Iranian state authority. Sovereignty is not merely borders and flags; it is the ability to protect citizens. When foreign powers can assassinate scientists in a country’s capital with impunity, sovereignty has already been damaged.By late 2025, Mansour describes Iran as a besieged fortress. This erosion is not collateral damage—it is the intended outcome. The U.S.–Israeli alliance seeks to transform Iran into a state that exists geographically but lacks independent decision-making power, particularly in regional affairs. Calls for Iran to sever ties with its regional allies are, in effect, demands for the surrender of its foreign policy autonomy.Conclusion: Absolute Security, Absolute InsecurityMansour concludes with a stark warning: in the Middle East, absolute security for one actor inevitably produces absolute insecurity for others. As 2026 approaches, the central question is no longer whether Iran will attempt to rebuild its sovereignty, but what form that reconstruction will take in a world determined to deny it any normal path forward.The ceasefire, in this reading, is not peace—it is merely the silence between phases of a longer and more destabilizing struggle.
Wir verwenden Cookies, um unsere Website bereitzustellen, zu verbessern und um anonyme Statistiken zu erstellen. Einige Dienste von Drittanbietern können ebenfalls Cookies einsetzen. Sie können Ihre Auswahl jederzeit in den Privatsphäre-Einstellungen ändern.
Wählen Sie, welche Cookie-Kategorien Sie zulassen möchten:
