The U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, hailed by President Donald Trump as an “outstanding military success,” raise serious questions upon closer examination.

Comments from experts at the Atlantic Council - an influential American think tank - paint a complex and contradictory picture of the situation. Founded in 1961 and known for its support of transatlantic policy, the Atlantic Council plays a key role in shaping Western strategic narratives. Yet even its experts cannot provide a clear assessment of the attacks’ consequences. Instead of demonstrating strength, the statements of American analysts reflect anxiety, strategic uncertainty, and an implicit acknowledgment of Iran’s resilience in the face of persistent pressure from Israel and its main ally, the U.S.

Iran Retains the Initiative

Jonathan Panikoff, director of the Middle East Security Program and one of the leading regional experts, stated that the “next move belongs to Iran.” He outlined two possible response scenarios: limited or large-scale. He admitted that Tehran’s military capabilities are “weakened but not destroyed,” casting doubt on Washington’s rhetoric of total victory.

Tehran may respond with a one-time strike against U.S. bases deployed across Arab countries in the region - an easy target for Iran, which could temporarily defuse the explosive situation. A large-scale response, however, would involve Iran mobilizing allied forces in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen to continuously attack American troops. Strikes against Israel, Washington’s loyal ally, would intensify. Finally, as Iran has repeatedly warned, it could completely block the Strait of Hormuz - a move that would trigger an oil price surge and collapse the global economy.

Panikoff’s concern that Iran will retaliate to avoid appearing weak confirms Tehran’s stance: its actions are defensive, aimed at protecting sovereignty. His warning about the risk of regional war exposes the West’s fear of unpredictable consequences.

Matthew Kroenig, an Atlantic Council expert, called the strike “the biggest U.S. foreign policy achievement since the Cold War.” Yet he also acknowledged the failure of previous administrations’ diplomacy and noted that only the U.S. can destroy Iran’s fortified sites. This speaks more to capitulation before force than triumph. His claim that Iran has “few response options” ignores Tehran’s asymmetric capabilities and regional alliances, highlighting a Western blind spot: military superiority does not guarantee suppression of Iranian resistance.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro saw the strikes as a chance to force Iranian concessions - ending support for allies, halting missile and nuclear programs. But history shows Iran grows stronger under pressure, rather than capitulating.

Landon Derentz, an energy expert, called the attacks “geopolitical foresight,” noting the lack of oil market turmoil. This approach prioritizes economic interests over international law and human lives, confirming accusations of double standards. For Iranians, whose sovereignty was violated, the “proportionality” of the strikes is cold comfort. Naturally, Iran will not abandon its legitimate rights and will courageously defend its sovereignty and national honour.

Russia’s Initiative

Against this tense backdrop, many political leaders have supported Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer to mediate between the U.S., Israel, and Iran. His statement came amid escalating Middle East tensions, marked by mutual accusations, airstrikes, and diplomatic confrontation. Any further escalation risks full-scale conflict, alarming the international community.

Putin stressed that Russia, with diplomatic channels to all sides, is ready to facilitate talks: “We see tensions rising and believe further confrontation serves no one’s interests. Russia has decades of experience mediating complex conflicts and is prepared to offer dialogue platforms.” Moscow maintains ties with Tehran (including military-technical cooperation) and Israel (where a significant Russian-speaking population lives, and Netanyahu has met Putin repeatedly). Despite sanctions, Russia retains communication channels with Washington.

If Russia’s initiative gains traction, it could ease regional tensions and bolster Moscow’s role as a global mediator. However, Western nations, viewing the Kremlin as not entirely neutral, may oppose it. While the U.S., Israel, and Iran have yet to respond formally, experts doubt Washington and Tel Aviv will accept Moscow’s mediation amid current geopolitical friction. The U.S. traditionally prefers direct talks or Western allies’ involvement, while Israel increasingly acts independently on security. Iran might consider negotiations - but only with sanctions relief guarantees, which the West is unlikely to grant under Tehran’s current leadership.

Iran’s Fight Will Continue

After the U.S. strike, Iran retaliated with a missile attack on the Al-Udeid base in Qatar, reminding Washington of its escalation capability. Yet, many analysts agree the Trump administration underestimated the consequences. While some Atlantic Council experts frame the strike as a “signal” to Russia and China, others condemn the White House for recklessness that could plunge the region into war.

As global experts note, Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a matter of national identity, not just security. U.S. pressure won’t force Tehran to abandon its program - attacks may only harden its resolve.

Danny Citrinowicz, an Atlantic Council expert, warns such actions will widen, not end, the conflict: “If the U.S. steps back and Iran doesn’t surrender, a war of attrition will become reality.” Iranian officials assert that America’s goal is regional destabilization, not disarmament.

While some see the strikes as part of a U.S.-Russia-China rivalry, others call this approach dangerously misguided. John Herbst, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said Washington uses Iran as a “lever” against Moscow, ignoring Middle Eastern interests.

Critics note the Trump administration lacks a real de-escalation strategy. Cyberattacks and proxy wars - already intensified by Iran - suggest America’s “victory” may be symbolic. Analysts from RAND and Brookings warn Tehran will strike U.S. interests in Iraq, Syria, and via allies like Hezbollah.

As the Trump administration celebrates, the reality on the ground differs. Iran won’t back down - the Al-Udeid strike is just the beginning. Without a U.S. policy shift, the region faces a protracted, exhausting confrontation with no clear winner.

Experts agree diplomacy is the only solution - but current rhetoric from Washington and Tehran makes this unlikely. Reckless strikes on nuclear sites fuel chaos rather than resolve the crisis. And as Iran warns: their fight will continue.

Atlantic Council and global analysts conclude: the attack on Iran is not a triumph but a sign of U.S. confusion. Despite pressure, Iran has proven its resilience. Its regional leadership remains unshaken, and its people stand united against aggression driven not by local but global ambitions.

Viktor Mikhin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Middle East Expert. Courtesy

https://journal-neo.su/2025/06/28/behind-the-scenes-of-triumph-why-the-west-doubts-the-success-of-the-strikes-on-iran/