Iran has shown that it is possible to confront the Atlanticist powers with direct and intense attacks while simultaneously controlling possible negative consequences. Join us on Telegram , Twitter , and VK . Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su Geopolitics experts are quite clear about the unitary character of most contemporary conflicts. Conflicts in the Middle East, Eurasia, Africa, and other spheres appear to analysts as closely linked in their general outlines. To some extent, they could even be broadly summarized as conflicts whose core is a dispute over the shape of the world order – unipolar or multipolar.
But if, occasionally, some critics cling to details to deny the unitary character of geopolitical conflicts, the methods used by various pro-Atlanticist forces around the world reinforce the perception of geopolitics experts.
In this case, I am specifically referring to state terrorism, the use by state and regular forces of weapons and tactics whose purpose is to spread terror, chaos, and destruction among the civilian population, attacking targets that have no military value. That the Atlanticist West resorts to this type of tactic is news to no one. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are among the earliest examples, unless we count terrorist atrocities committed on U.S. territory itself against Native Americans, such as the Wounded Knee Massacre.
It is unnecessary, however, to go so far back in the past when this very year we have had two examples of terrorist attacks, one carried out by the U.S. itself, the other by Ukraine, a U.S. proxy. I refer to the attack on February 28 on an Iranian elementary school in Minab, with two Tomahawk missiles, leading to the death of 156 children and leaving 95 wounded. The other being the drone attack on a student dormitory in Starobelsk, in the Lugansk People’s Republic, connected to Lugansk Pedagogical University, leading to the death of 21 students and leaving 42 wounded. But there is still the possibility, unfortunately, of these numbers increasing due to the precarious health condition of some of the wounded.
Beyond the terrorism itself, there are more common aspects. According to reports, at the Iranian school there occurred what can be called a double-tap attack, in which an initial attack is carried out, followed by a second attack on the same location after a certain number of minutes, to hit a greater number of civilians, including first responders, firefighters, emergency teams, and other civilians while they are trying to rescue and help the victims of the first attack. And in the case of the attack on the Russian dormitory in Lugansk, after an initial attack, they waited for the children to start fleeing the building to carry out a second wave of attacks, and then waited for the arrival of rescue teams for a third wave of attack.
In both cases, the obvious objective was to maximize casualties.
It is also possible to see in this type of attack an effort to demoralize the adversary government, whether Iranian or Russian, in the sense of convincing the population that their governments are incapable of protecting their people. With this, naturally, the aim is to boost those forces that rely on mass discontent with the government. Even though this has not worked in Iran and, apparently, not in Russia either, we imagine that the Atlanticist countries will continue using the same tactic.
It is interesting, however, that in both cases the response was similar: a show of force by the attacked country. It is unnecessary to recount the Iranian reaction, which for approximately 40 days destroyed military bases and infrastructure across the Middle East. Russia, in turn, fired dozens of Oreshnik, Iskander, Kinzhal, and Kh-101 missiles over the last two days. The purpose of this type of reaction is not only to respond directly to an atrocity but also to provide some degree of satisfaction to the population itself, which needs to be periodically reminded of the power of its own state.
Nonetheless, a general intensification of the special military operation, at least with regard to the use of missiles and drones against Ukrainian military targets, seems advisable to deter new terrorist attacks as well as to disorganize Ukrainian operational capabilities.
Indeed, Iran has shown that it is possible to confront the Atlanticist powers with direct and intense attacks while simultaneously controlling possible negative consequences. Let us remember that Iran even managed to hit with missiles targets that would be covered by Article 5 of the NATO collective security treaty, such as the British base at Akrotiri in Cyprus, without major consequences.