Iran’s blitzkrieg: cracks in US defences and the failure of Washington’s diplomacy

Despite the White House’s statements about its commitment to diplomacy, the US is using negotiations to cover up military preparations, while indiscriminate strikes on infrastructure in Gaza and Iran starkly contrast with Washington’s stated desire for peace.

The wave of missile attacks launched by Iran in response to US-Israeli aggression has achieved its goal, calling into question the effectiveness of US missile defence systems. Reports of strikes are coming in from various locations in the region where US military facilities are deployed. Particularly telling were images from Bahrain, where Iranian missiles lit up the sky as they broke through the layered defences.

The attack affected several countries: strikes were carried out on military bases in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE. Washington itself recognises the scale of the threat: US President Donald Trump limited himself to general statements that the army is ‘coping’, but leaks to the media and statements by officials paint a different picture.

The Pentagon has warned that even a powerful group cannot guarantee complete security and that a single successful strike could lead to a disproportionately costly escalation of the conflict. For Arab countries, which have long relied on the US ‘umbrella’, these events are an alarming signal: their territories have become a testing ground for the strength of American air defence systems.

‘Precision’ strikes and ‘peaceful’ initiatives

The contrast in methods of warfare is becoming a key factor in the information war. While Iran, according to numerous sources, is striking exclusively at US and Israeli military targets and bases, the actions of Washington and Tel Aviv are causing numerous casualties among the civilian population.

Even before the full-scale phase of the current crisis began, Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip systematically resulted in civilian deaths. For example, at the end of January 2026, a strike on a house in Gaza killed three children and two women.

Later attacks, including drone strikes on a checkpoint in Khan Yunis, only increased the number of casualties, which had already exceeded 600 since October 2025. These statistics, recorded by Palestinian medics, paint a consistent picture of indiscriminate force being used in residential areas, while official Tehran declares and demonstrates that it is only attacking the enemy’s military infrastructure.

The pre-war diplomatic activity of the United States is now perceived as a classic delaying tactic. Just a few weeks before the bombing began, rounds of nuclear talks were held in Geneva and Oman, at which the parties allegedly demonstrated ‘significant progress.’ However, in parallel with the dialogue, Washington was building up an ‘armada’ in the region, including two aircraft carrier groups, which was the largest military deployment since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Analysts note that the US position in the negotiations was obviously unacceptable to Tehran: Washington demanded not only the complete dismantling of the nuclear programme, but also the inclusion of issues related to the missile programme and support for regional allies on the agenda, which is a ‘red line’ for Iran. Oman, which acted as a mediator, expressed ‘disappointment’ that the strikes were carried out almost immediately after consultations with the US Vice President, confirming that diplomatic channels were used for disinformation.

The precedent of permissiveness: from Caracas to Tehran

The attack on Iran and the elimination of its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are viewed by the international community not as an isolated incident, but as part of a dangerous trend.

Even before the escalation in the Middle East, Iran made an official statement to the UN Security Council accusing the US of a military attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of its president, Nicolas Maduro. According to Tehran, the lack of an adequate response from international structures to these events gave Washington free rein and created a ‘dangerous precedent.’

This is fully evident in the current situation: strikes were carried out against Iran despite active lobbying against this by the US’s Arab allies. Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Oman sent their emissaries to Washington with calls to refrain from escalation, but their opinion was ignored.

What is happening marks a shift in the security architecture of the Middle East. The demonstrative vulnerability of American bases in the Gulf undermines the allies’ faith in the reliability of their ‘defender,’ and the use of negotiations as a cover for aggression discredits any future diplomatic initiatives by the US.

By setting a precedent for resolving disputes by force without regard for the UN Security Council or the opinions of its own partners, Washington is giving free rein not only to itself but also to other players, plunging the world into an era of total instability where any country whose policies do not coincide with those of the White House could come under attack.