A weakened Tehran lashes out performatively against US airbases to save face
The US-run Al Udeid airbase in Qatar had been evacuated days earlier, with satellite images showing the departure of planes and personnel widely publicised in the media. It is the most important US military airbase in the region, the home of Central Command. It even launched the drone that killed Iran's top military personality, General Qasem Soleimani, in 2020, Iranian state media said in the hours after 'Operation Glad Tidings of Victory.' The Monday strike against Al-Udeid had close to zero chance of American casualties – and provided the perfect moment of quasi-absurd face-saving for Iran.
The first hint of a possible strike came when the US Embassy in Doha, Qatar, issued an emergency 'shelter in place' order for US citizens. As if to remove any doubt, Qatar closed its airspace about an hour prior to the launch of what appears to have been close to a dozen missiles by Iran. Adding to the favourable conditions of the launch for Iran's dwindling arsenal, Qatar is close enough to permit the use of shorter-range missiles, stocks of which have not been as depleted as the medium-range missiles used to hit Israel over the past week.
To pour water on anything resembling a flame, Iran's National Security Council said moments after the attack the number of missiles fired had been 'as many as the number of bombs used in the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.' Packaging the barrage as the definition of a proportionate response, the Iranian statement went on to insist the attack posed 'no dangerous aspect to our friendly and brotherly country of Qatar and its noble people.'
Tehran's method of retaliation-without-fangs has been successfully tried and tested. After Soleimani was killed, Iran's retaliatory missile attack against the US's Al Asad airbase in Iraq was reportedly telegraphed to Baghdad beforehand, possibly helping reduce the level of US injury suffered to mostly concussions. Iran's response to Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in July 2024 in the heart of Tehran heavily telegraphed in advance.
'We knew they'd retaliate. They had a similar response after Soleimani,' a senior White House official said Monday night.
A playbook appears to be forming. But it is one that compounds Iran's military weakness each time it is employed. In 2020, the Islamic Republic lost its pre-eminent military personality – an Iranian hardline hero. In 2024, it showed that valuable allies were not safe in central Tehran. This year, the regime has lost control of its own airspace to the point of previously unthinkable strikes on their prized nuclear facilities by both Israel and the US.
This is stark testament to the differing powers on display. Iran has to feign its strength in a managed presentation of restrained and muted anger. The US and Israel get to break taboos daily, shattering Iran's long-held position as a regional power in under ten days, and perhaps ending its ambitions to be a nuclear power.
There is now only one real red line left for the United States or Israel to cross, and that is to directly target Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But that may seem ill-advised, given the likelihood this octogenarian theocrat would be replaced by a younger hardliner who is keener to flex Iran's muscles of deterrence. Better to accept toothless retaliations amid Tehran's slow decline.
Each expression of Iran's anger has confirmed its slow erosion of power. An angry fledging nuclear power would have accelerated its race to an atomic bomb. That may still happen. But it looks more likely that Iran is desperately hoping its performative lashing out can sate what remains of its hardliners, decimated by Israeli strikes. It may even hope to shuffle back to diplomacy, with talks to contain a nuclear program and ballistic missile stockpile likely severely depleted to shadows of what they were merely ten days ago.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's 50-day Ukraine ultimatum is doomed to fail
President Trump campaigned on a promise to end the Ukraine war within 2 4 hours of returning to the White House. Now back in the White House, he finds himself hemmed in by the realities of great-power politics. Trump's self-confidence has collided with the entrenched dynamics of a grinding conflict. Frustrated, he has turned to familiar tools of coercion: threats, pressure tactics and a new flow of advanced weapons to Kyiv. Trump's latest initiative gives Moscow a 50-day deadline to end its war in Ukraine. He has threatened secondary sanctions on Russia's key trading partners and opened a fresh weapons pipeline to Kyiv, hoping this twin-pronged approach will force Russian President Vladimir Putin's hand. But like Trump's earlier attempts to employ brute pressure as a substitute for diplomacy, this initiative reflects impatience more than strategic clarity. Trump once believed that his personal rapport with Putin, coupled with a dealmaker's instinct, could bring about a ceasefire. But six months into his new term, his peace push lies in tatters. Russia continues to press its territorial ambitions, while Ukraine, bolstered by Western military support, shows little interest in making major concessions. Instead of a breakthrough, Trump faces a deepening quagmire. The irony is unmistakable — the president who pledged to end America's entanglements in ' forever wars ' is now escalating U.S. involvement in one that is deflecting American attention away from more-pressing strategic challenges, including from China, which is seeking to supplant the U.S. as the world's foremost power. Trump's new Ukraine strategy bears an eerie resemblance to his Iran policy, when he tried to bomb Tehran into submission, only to end up entrenching animosities further and weakening U.S. leverage. There is no doubt that ending the war in Ukraine is in America's strategic interest. The conflict has absorbed vast U.S. resources, diverted diplomatic bandwidth and strained transatlantic cohesion. More importantly, the war has delayed Washington's ability to focus on the key Indo-Pacific region — the world's emerging economic and geopolitical nerve center. The pivot to the Indo-Pacific is not merely aspirational. A leaked memorandum titled 'Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance,' signed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, identifies China as the Pentagon's 'sole pacing threat.' The Trump administration is seeking to reorient the U.S. military posture to prepare for a potential showdown in Asia over Chinese aggression against democratic Taiwan. The war in Ukraine, by draining American attention, resources and capabilities, undermines this rebalancing. Seen from this angle, Trump is right to seek an end to the conflict. But his approach — escalating arms transfers while threatening punitive sanctions on countries that do business with Russia — is unlikely to yield peace. If anything, it risks prolonging the war by reinforcing the belief in Kyiv that Washington remains committed to a military solution. In fact, Trump's threat to impose harsh penalties on Russia's trading partners lacks credibility. Such sanctions would trigger a U.S. showdown with China, which trades nearly $250 billion annually with Russia, including major oil and gas imports. Sanctioning India could upend America's Indo-Pacific strategy aimed at maintaining a stable balance of power. History offers little support for the notion that coercion alone can deliver durable peace. Military pressure may bring parties to the table, but diplomacy is what cements outcomes. The Dayton Accords, which ended the Bosnian war, and the Camp David Accords, which brought peace between Egypt and Israel, were both products of tough negotiations rather than deadlines and threats. Trump's maximalist tactics risk backfiring on multiple fronts. Sanctioning Russia's trading partners could alienate crucial 'swing' nations in the global contest with China. These states are already wary of U.S. unilateralism, and some of them could be pushed into Beijing's orbit. Moreover, punitive economic measures often fail to change state behavior, especially when national security interests are at stake, as is the case for Russia in Ukraine. Meanwhile, a flood of advanced new U.S. weapons to Ukraine may boost short-term battlefield performance but will do little to bridge the wider diplomatic impasse. Putin, faced with increased Western backing for Kyiv, is unlikely to scale back his goals. Instead, he may double down, calculating that time and attrition are on his side. The real path to peace in Ukraine lies not in deadlines or ultimatums, but in a forward-looking diplomatic initiative that recognizes the legitimate interests of all parties while seeking to uphold Ukraine's sovereignty. The Biden administration made limited overtures in this direction, but Trump, who claims to be a great dealmaker, has an opportunity to go further. Instead of trying to impose peace through pressure alone, he must find ways to bring both sides to the table — with credible inducements and face-saving compromises. This will require working with international partners — not just NATO allies, but also influential neutral states like India and the United Arab Emirates that can serve as mediators. It will also require a nuanced understanding of Russia's domestic political constraints and Ukraine's security concerns. None of this is easy, but it is more likely to succeed than a strategy built on coercion and deadlines. Despite promising to end the war quickly, Trump now finds himself caught in the same bind as his predecessor. His failure to secure a ceasefire has deepened America's involvement in the war — the very entanglement he vowed to end. Unless he pivots toward a more diplomatic course, his 50-day ultimatum to Moscow will go the way of his 24-hour pledge: unmet and quietly shelved. Deadlines don't make peace. Diplomacy does.
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Third Biden aide refuses to answer Oversight questions: Comer
A third aide who served former President Biden while he was in the White House has refused to testify before a congressional panel, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said on Friday. Comer in a post on X said it was 'unbelievable' that Annie Tomasini, who served as deputy director of Oval Office Operations, and others refused to answer 'basic questions about … Biden's fitness to serve.' 'It's apparent they would rather hide key information to protect themselves and Joe Biden than be truthful with the American people about this historic scandal,' Comer said. 'There needs to be transparency and accountability, and we will continue to pursue the truth and examine options to get the answers we need,' he added. Comer said Tomasini invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked if she was instructed to lie about Biden's health or the handling of classified documents found in his garage. She was also asked if the former president or anyone in the White House instructed her to conceal or destroy classified material found at Biden's home or office, and if she ever conspired with anyone in the White House to hide information regarding the Biden family's business dealings, the Republican lawmaker added. Earlier this week, Anthony Bernal, informally known as former first lady Jill Biden's 'work husband,' refused to testify before the Oversight panel as did Kevin O'Connor, Biden's former doctor, earlier this month. The White House and Comer allege that Biden staffers helped cover up the former president's cognitive decline at the end of his term in office. Both Biden and Bernal have rejected the accusations. 'Most recently, the Committee seeks Mr. Bernal's testimony based on a purported controversy regarding use of the autopen at the conclusion of President Biden's term. President Biden has already confirmed that he personally made all decisions concerning his grants of clemency,' Bernal said in a statement sent to The Hill. 'While the Committee only recently began its autopen investigation, the Chairman has already declared that this matter is ' the biggest scandal in Oval Office history,'' he added. The former president shared similar sentiments during an interview published Sunday by The New York Times. 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false,' he told the news outlet.
USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
WSJ report marks latest twist in Trump-Epstein saga: Recent developments, explained
President Donald Trump is threatening to sue the Wall Street Journal over a report that a birthday card bearing his name was sent to Jeffrey Epstein more than two decades ago, marking the latest twist in the saga over supposed files on the sex offender. According to the Journal, a letter addressed from Trump to Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003 was part of a leather-bound book including dozens of other cards. The Trump letter ends with 'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret,' the Journal reported July 17. Trump denied writing the letter and said in a social media post the story is "false, malicious, and defamatory." The report comes amid political tensions over Epstein's supposed client list, which the Department of Justice and FBI said on July 7 never existed, despite past comments from Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi to the contrary. Here's what to know about recent developments in the saga. July 7: DOJ denies Epstein 'list' exists In a memo released July 7, the Justice Department and FBI said they found no evidence that Epstein kept a "client list." The review also found no evidence that Epstein blackmailed prominent people as part of his actions or that he was murdered while in custody, according to the memo. The announcement came after Bondi had seemingly confirmed a client list existed when she was asked about it during a February Fox News interview: "It's sitting on my desk right now to review," she said. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said July 7 that Bondi's past remarks referred to "the entirety of all of the paperwork" in the Epstein case, not a list of clients. Trump supporters, others question handling of Epstein case After the July 7 memo, some politicians and Trump supporters alike have called into question the administration's handling of the Epstein case and the assertion that a client list doesn't exist. Epstein fallout Mike Pence urges Trump to 'release all the files' on Jeffrey Epstein 'What changed?' Popular podcaster criticizes JD Vance over past Epstein comments "No one believes there is not a client list," U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) posted on X July 8. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said in a July 15 interview, "We should put everything out there and let the people decide." "I'm going to go throw up, actually," right-wing radio show host Alex Jones said in a July 7 video in response to the memo. On the other side of the aisle, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on July 15, "If you're not hiding anything, prove that to the American people." Trump has lashed out at supporters who have questioned the handling of the case. 'Jeffrey Epstein hoax': Trump lashes out at supporters July 17: Did Trump write a birthday card to Epstein? What WSJ report says The Wall Street Journal on July 17 published a report detailing a lewd letter bearing Trump's name that was sent to Epstein for a 2003 birthday album. The letter contained text inside a hand-drawn outline of a nude woman, with Trump's signature displayed as "a squiggly 'Donald' below her waist, mimicking pubic hair," the Journal wrote. Trump denied writing the card in a series of social media posts, calling it "FAKE" and saying, "These are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don't draw pictures." He also said he plans to sue the newspaper over the publication of the story, adding that its editors were "warned directly" by him. July 17: Bondi says she will release Epstein grand jury docs After the Journal report, Trump said in another social media post he is directing Bondi to reveal more Epstein documents. "Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval," he said. "This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!" Bondi responded on July 17 that "we are ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts." Contributing: Zac Anderson, Joey Garrison & Aysha Bagchi, USA TODAY Melina Khan is a national trending reporter for USA TODAY. She can be reached at
