The term "primary enemy" is widely used to specify who should be prioritized in a confrontation among a range of hostile options. The concept was addressed by two legendary strategists: the Chinese Sun Tzu in his "The Art of War," written 2,500 years ago, and in the West by another iconic thinker, Carl von Clausewitz, who used the term "center of gravity" with the same connotation.

Well, that’s precisely what Iran did from the very moment they were attacked; that is, they established as the primary target of their response the dozens of military bases with which the US has surrounded the Persian country in the areas bordering the Persian Gulf. These installations concentrated the US military presence in this region, as well as providing fundamental support for the defense of Israel.

Not twenty-four hours had gone by after the treacherous and utterly unnecessary murder—a political blunder on top of it all—of more than 160 schoolgirls in Minab, when Iran began a systematic missile attack on the aforementioned bases, targeting not only Israel. This represents a departure from what they did in the "12-day war" of June 2025, which some experts suggest was used by the Persians to influence the actions of their "main enemy."

And in their bombing campaign, they applied impeccable logic: first, the radars, some of them highly sophisticated, valued at several billion dollars, rendering "blind and deaf" not only the US navies but also, quite frankly, the famous Israeli Iron Dome, while it was still intact.

Following this action, which has continued over time with some 30 waves of drones and missiles, came the dismantling of the US Fifth Fleet's base, crucial for the forward operating role described earlier. Likewise, other positions guarantee the logistics and other needs of any US ship or troop that passes through or is stationed in the Persian Gulf. And all of this was built over at least the last 30 years with an investment so astronomical it defies description.

So, the Iranians have practically dismantled an extremely expensive military belt, which has several implications.

The first and most obvious: the US Navy is not invincible. Second, the technology they use was easily surpassed by Iranian weapons, something that, in addition to its military implications, also has economic ones because, as is well known, they sell it everywhere as a panacea, and now we have to see who will want to buy it. It also certainly has an extraordinary demoralizing effect, associated with the two points mentioned above, both for the Marines, who literally escaped, and for the Trump administration.

We're not talking about just any damage here, lest there still be any suspicion. No, the impact is colossal because since World War II, the "most powerful army in the world," according to President Trump's rhetoric when referring to the American army, had not suffered such a disaster in such a short time (one week). A renowned Israeli analyst, Alon Mizrahi, compared it to Pearl Harbor multiplied to the nth power.

The attacks on Israel are rampant on social media, which millions of people have turned into alternative sources of information, given the Zionist authorities' iron grip on the military, infrastructural, and economic impact they are suffering. It’s estimated that in just one week they are already experiencing losses of at least $3 billion USD, including ports, refineries, the Dimon nuclear plant, and most significantly, the virtual destruction of the famous steel dome.

Incidentally, Iran has finally established that collaborating with the Americans comes at a high price—a concrete message, but also a subliminal one, to its Arab neighbors, who all this time allowed the Americans to use their territories in exchange for protection that ultimately proved useless. In short, next to the twisted irons lies the very trust of being able to rely on the US.

Over the course of the following days, the US faced the reality—not only the now universally acknowledged fact that they hadn't anticipated such a turn of events, acting with visible improvisation—but also that, unlike previous conflicts, Washington has failed to assemble a respectable international military coalition, with the exception, of course, of Israel.

As already explained, the Arab nations involved, and opportunely attacked at their US bases, have begun to reject their alliance with the US, and there is even talk that they will withdraw or suspend multi-billion dollar investment plans in that country. The economic blow is significant, to say the least, as is Trump's rhetoric of "flooding" his country with foreign investment.

In this context, it’s clear that, for the first time, perhaps in centuries, a convergence of interests uniting Sunni and Shia Muslims (the Iranians) may be underway. They can thank Trump for this miracle, should it materialize and endure.

Additionally, the US has faced reactions ranging from veiled suspicion to outright rejection from its European Union "partners," most notably Spain, which denied the US permission to use its bases in the Iberian country precisely when it needs them most. The phrase "no to war," uttered by the Spanish Prime Minister, quickly went viral. Portugal, Italy, Great Britain, France, Norway, Sweden, and of course Denmark—particularly vilified by the White House resident regarding Greenland—are reacting in similar, less confrontational tones.

Frankly, this international environment, “hostile” to the US-led invasion, is unprecedented since at least the Second World War. It’s true that the justification for attacking Iran was utterly laughable, which is nothing new and has been accepted on other occasions, but now Trump is also paying the price for his disrespect and ignorant arrogance in treating those who would have been sure allies under other circumstances.

A logical question arises: what was the point of so many years of accusations, isolation measures, and slander against the Iranian revolution, which virtually turned that country into a "rogue state"? Clearly, none of this is working.

Another colossal blunder was the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who, as has been said, was not only the supreme leader of Iran in the state order, but also the spiritual leader of one of the two Muslim congregations, the Shiites. Khamenei is something like the Pope for this religious denomination, with millions of followers worldwide.

The assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei should be analyzed using a kind of reverse political sociology, according to which Trump, true to his beliefs, thought that by killing the leader, he would destabilize the resistance and thus, "in a short time," bring down "the tyrannical Persian regime." On the contrary, the crime is probably one of the biggest and perhaps a decisive political blunder of this conflict. Simply put, Trump or the Israelis forgot that war is an extension of politics, as Clausewitz said.

In any case, the erratic US intelligence service has done very poorly. How could they have been unaware of or underestimated the existence of the so-called "mosaic system," whereby the Persian command is decentralized and provides for up to four potential successors in case the main leader dies, with the second-in-command taking over, then the third, and so on, ad infinitum.

Another blunder by the aggressor "services." Iranian authorities have identified General Ismail Quani, head of the Quds Force (intelligence), as a Mossad spy, likely discovered some time ago, and used to pass on contaminated, useless information—a tactic as old as espionage itself.

Not to mention the CIA/Mossad's failed attempts to overthrow the Tehran government through a "popular mobilization," employing unconventional warfare methods. Here too, reverse sociology applies: the invasion has contributed to greater Iranian unity, even despite traditional differences with minorities such as the Kurds, Azerbaijanis, and Baloch. Now, some of their leaders are proclaiming their support for Tehran in the guise of a "jihad against the Great Satan," meaning Trump.

Additionally, Israel faces the threat of fighters historically allied with Iran, operating in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria. These fighters, each acting independently, have not only shown a willingness to support the Iranian government but, according to publicly available information, are already fighting against Israel.

Emerging from the quagmire into which Trump has plunged his country by invading Iran, one can briefly observe the hornet's nest being created within his own borders. Paradoxically, this could and should be the most important anti-war front, where he suffers his most strategic defeat.

The scenario is somewhat similar to what occurred after the invasion of Venezuela, but a hundred times worse. The rejection of this type of military adventure within American society was already evident during that lightning episode of January 3rd; therefore, social sensitivity is even greater a priori, not to mention the effects that the Trumpian disaster itself is now having.

Listing all the backlash against the Trump administration in the US, just one week after the invasion, would require a lot of space. It's worth highlighting the reaction, once again in Congress, as always sidelined in the decision-making process, regardless of what the Constitution stipulates; and in the midst of it all, a debate that can only be described as surreal regarding the reasons for the attack—that is, destroying the nonexistent Iranian nuclear program for military purposes, which Trump himself claimed to have dismantled by June 2025.

Also noteworthy are the ludicrous contradictions expressed to the media by high-ranking officials like Mr. Rubio, such as whether Washington has a plan or if they are acting in a subordinate capacity to Israel. And in the background, like an accusatory shadow, is the subtle suggestion that the invasion is a cover-up for the growing, arguably unstoppable, scandal surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's files.

And once again the specter looms, of paramount electoral importance, of how the MAGA base will react to the blatant deception perpetrated by their messianic leader, who promised zero involvement in foreign wars, much less a conflict that even the White House grudgingly admits could last at least eight weeks. Also, zero "regime change," something, incidentally, promised by the president. The US president during his last visit to Saudi Arabia in May of last year. Incredible.

To discuss the economic effects this war could have on the US, and on the world in general, requires an essay with abundant figures. For the invaders, having to deal with an expenditure of one billion dollars a day, accompanied by a rise in the price of a barrel of oil, stimulated by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, with its resulting increase in inflation or the fall of stock markets, and above all, perhaps most importantly, how badly will the petrodollar system be damaged? As has already been explained, if it dies, the financial collapse of the empire could be decisive. What madness!

Iran is striking at the main enemy, both of them and of the rest of the world; its victory, something not guaranteed, but reasonably probable, would be an extraordinary contribution to the rest of humanity: stopping the uncontrolled war machine of the decadent empire and the beginning of the end of the far-right US government. As has already been explained, Trumpism is not an accident; it’s probably the only way the empire has to survive. On social media, one can read: the imperial operation “epic fury” has been transformed into “epic failure.”

Translated by Amilkal Labañino / Cubasi Translation Staff