firstnightwithoutusstrikesoniranintwoweeks

#firstnightwithoutusstrikesoniranintwoweeks
MOSSADIL COMMENTARY: AMERICA CANNOT FIGHT THE AXIS ALONE
Reports that interceptor shortages weighed heavily on President Trump’s decision not to escalate the campaign against Iran expose a much larger strategic problem.
The United States appears to have taken an enormous share of this war onto its own shoulders.
Israel participated in the initial attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, missile infrastructure and IRGC bases. But the campaign soon began to resemble an expensive exchange of strikes—attack, retaliation, interception, repeat—without a clearly defined political end state.
That approach was always unlikely to deliver a lasting victory.
As long as regime change remains off the table, the Iranian regime and the IRGC will survive to rebuild, rearm and begin the cycle again. More missiles will need to be manufactured. More interceptors will be consumed. More bases will be threatened. Another round will eventually become inevitable.
Meanwhile, America is carrying a disproportionate share of the industrial burden.
Iran may be losing production facilities, launchers and stockpiles, but it is not operating alone. It can draw upon technology, weapons, components and strategic support from Russia, China, North Korea and other hostile partners.
This is not simply a conflict between Washington and Tehran.
It is part of a much wider confrontation between the Western world and an increasingly coordinated authoritarian axis determined to weaken it.
This creates two possible paths—but first, the West must recognize that the current strategy is not neutral.
Iran’s regime already understands that it faces a potential existential threat. Its survival now depends largely on whether the United States and its allies ultimately decide to remove it.
That reality is unlikely to reduce Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. It gives the regime an even stronger incentive to accelerate them.
From Tehran’s perspective, a nuclear weapon is no longer merely a tool of regional power. It is the ultimate insurance policy against regime change.
That means kicking the can down the road does not preserve stability. It may produce the opposite result: a more desperate regime moving faster toward nuclear breakout while rebuilding its missile forces and preparing for the next confrontation.
The first path is decisive victory.
If the objective is truly to end the Iranian threat rather than temporarily manage it, then removing the regime and dismantling the IRGC must return to the center of the strategy. There will be no permanent end to this conflict while the same leadership remains in power, concludes that nuclear weapons are essential to its survival and prepares for the next round.
The second path is industrial mobilization.
If regime change is not the objective, then the United States and its allies must urgently establish a multinational defense-manufacturing alliance capable of producing missiles, interceptors, drones, aircraft components and ammunition on a massive scale.
Production cannot remain concentrated in a handful of American factories. It must be distributed across the United States, Israel, Europe and other allied nations so that no single facility, supply chain or country becomes a bottleneck
$CROSS
$VVV
$TROLL