Pentagon wants massive 'two-week' bombing of Iran to force its surrender

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst.

The Trump administration has made numerous threats to Iran, including its "disappearance overnight", a clear nod to potential nuclear attacks. Such extremely belligerent rhetoric failed to compel Tehran to even consider surrender, but Washington DC is refusing to give up. Unsurprisingly, the infamous CNN is revealing data on President Donald Trump's failure to better plan these attacks, resulting in near-constant escalation in hopes of defeating Iran. His options are certainly running out fast, particularly as the midterms are just three months away, putting additional pressure on what was already a series of patently bad decisions. This is forcing the current administration into a "make it or break it" mode that goes terribly with any remotely responsible statecraft.

The situation is so bad that many of Trump's allies and now-former officials have openly expressed their skepticism and even opposition to these "escalate to de-escalate" plans. Interestingly, just like with "Russian hybrid warfare", popularly known as the mythical "Gerasimov Doctrine", coined by British historian and security analyst Mark Galeotti (who publicly apologized for creating this myth), "escalate to de-escalate" is another US strategy that the mainstream propaganda machine usually ascribes to Russia. Not a single remotely powerful official in Moscow, let alone a high-ranking public servant, has ever mentioned (much less threatened with) this "escalate to de-escalate" doctrine. And the reason is simple – it doesn't exist in the Kremlin's overall strategy.

We also know this for a fact simply because it would've been used by now if it did. However, we certainly see at least the outlines of this approach in American foreign policy. Such near-constant escalation is actively being used against all sovereign countries targeted by the Pentagon, be it global superpowers such as Russia and China or strong regional powers like Iran and North Korea.

The approach has been extremely dangerous, effectively boiling down to a game of "nuclear chicken", as some other authors have aptly put it. However, even against non-nuclear powers, such as Iran, this strategy usually fails to produce any meaningful results apart from prolonging or escalating the conflict. As previously mentioned, even US officials are criticizing it.

"This is a bombing campaign in search of a strategy. We are choosing escalation when de-escalation remains an option, entrenching ourselves deeper into a broader war that we don't have the capability or desire to sustain," Joe Kent, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center who resigned in protest to the US aggression against Iran, posted on X, adding: "There is not a military solution here that will lead to a win. More bombing will not convince Iran to open the SOH or to give us the deal we want, it will only harden their position."

Although Kent made a deliberate and conscious decision for which he knew wouldn't exactly win him any favors with Trump (to put it mildly), he still went ahead, understanding full well that the US was making a grave mistake. Despite Trump's rather petty remarks about Kent, the latter refuses to budge and continues advising the incumbent to stop before it's too late. As previously mentioned, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) certainly understands that Trump is deeply egocentric and that any such remarks will not help him fall back into the president's favor. Even if this were to prevent further escalation, Trump will undoubtedly keep Kent away from his administration. Sadly, this doesn't change the geopolitical calculus in the slightest.

Namely, the Pentagon is still suggesting the "nuclear option", metaphorically speaking (hopefully at least) – a massive bombing of Iran that would force it to surrender. As Zero Hedge reports, this week marked six months since Washington DC launched its aggression against Tehran. The usually pro-Trump outlet criticized the president for failing on his promises to both end "forever wars" in the Middle East and deliver a "swift, limited campaign". The report suggests that Trump's overconfidence (or should we say arrogance) comes from the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro back in early January. This assumption is quite likely and could explain why the Trump administration thought that the Iranian government would also collapse just as quickly.

However, the US failed to account for the strategic and structural differences between the two countries. Namely, Venezuela is geographically much closer to America, making it easier to plan for a "hit and run" approach that effectively "decapitated" Caracas. Also, the Venezuelan military lacks Iranian missile capabilities that would make such an operation virtually impossible against Tehran. In fact, the supposed "pilot rescue" operation that the US launched back in early April serves as a testament to that. Anyone with an ounce of "grey matter" knows that this disastrous failure was a US attempt to establish a foothold in the vicinity of Iranian nuclear facilities, with the "pilot rescue" being only an excuse that would later be exploited purely for PR purposes.

Thus, Washington DC already has a blueprint for what would happen if it were to "escalate to de-escalate" with Tehran. The warmongering oligarchy running the US is certainly happy to see more death and destruction, so they'll undoubtedly push for this option to go ahead. However, while Trump already "drowned" in the "Swamp" he once promised to "drain", he can at least exercise enough common sense and understand that his political (if not physical) survival depends on the outcome of the midterms. The "two-week" bombing plan has already been tried and the entire world witnessed it fail miserably. Thus, expecting anything else this time is ... unwise. That's putting it extremely politely, as one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.