TEHRAN – In the wake of recent US bombardment of nuclear facilities in Iranian Foudow, Natanz and Isfahan, which President Donald Trump described as “an epic military success,” a closer look at the commentary from experts at the Atlantic Council, a prominent American think tank, features far more complicated and contrasting photographs.
These US insider statements far from showing strength, revealing deep anxiety, strategic uncertainty, and the tacit recognition of Iran’s persistent resilience in the face of sustained invasion by the Israeli Zionist regime, and the more recent allies, the US US
It’s good to consider that the Atlantic Council, founded in 1961 and known for its advocacy of transatlantic policies, plays an important role in shaping the strategic narrative of the West.
Iran still holds the initiative
Jonathan Panikov, director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, warned that “now is an Iranian move,” outlining two counterpaths. Retaliation or broader escalation. Importantly, he acknowledged that Iran’s military capabilities were “deteriorating, but far from disappearing,” and undermined the story of Washington’s complete victory.
Panikov’s concern that Tehran might fight back to make it appear weak only reaffirms what Iranian leaders have maintained for a long time. Their attitude is defensive and rooted in the dignity of the nation.
His warning that the crisis could “contribute to regional wars” reveals Western fears of unintended consequences caused by overreach.
Declare your fears and declare victory
Matthew Chloenich, vice president of the Atlantic Council Scowcroft Center, praised the attack as “the largest foreign policy achievement in the United States since the Cold War.” But likewise he admitted that the previous administration had not been able to resolve the standoffs diplomatically, and that “only the US had the capacity to destroy it” and that it failed to resolve Iran’s enhanced facilities. His remarks suggest not the end of victory, but a surrender that forces them after decades of negotiations fail.
Kroenig also argued that Iran “has few good retaliation options.” This is an argument that ignores Iran’s asymmetric capabilities and strategic partnerships across the region. His remarks reflect the continued struggle of the West to harmonize Iran’s ability to endure, adapt and push back its military control with its military control.
Put pressure on Iran to make concessions
Daniel B. Shapiro, former US ambassador to Israel, understood the strike as an opportunity to force Iran into new diplomacy. However, only after imposing a state like surrender could it have stopped support for allies, abandoned missile programs, and ended nuclear development forever.
Shapiro’s logic assumes that Iran will admit defeat after being attacked, but history shows that Iran thrives under pressure and rarely bends into rog haughty power.
By acknowledging that Iran may appear weak, Shapiro exposes the flaws in Washington’s bullying model. Pressure can burn rebellion rather than compliance.
Market stability, not moral justification
Landon Delenz, head of the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center, framed the strike as a symbol of America’s “geopolitical foresight,” praised the lack of disruption in the energy market.
This technical view prioritizes oil flows against international law or human costs, confirming that many people in the Global South believe. US policies in this region are guided by economics rather than ethics.
Delenz’s praise for the “calibrated response” offers little comfort to the Iranians whose sovereignty has been trampled down by foreign jets. The fact that the market remains stable only highlights how insulated Western profits are highlighted from the consequences of Western profits being imposed on others.
Iranian identity and unharmed resolution
Alan Pinot, a former CIA officer and now a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, has acknowledged Iran’s commitment to its nuclear identity is stiff. He said that Tehran “had a large part of its identity” on maintaining its nuclear company, and that it is unlikely to abandon it under threat.
His warning that Trump’s strike will send a message to Russia and China only affirms Iran’s geopolitical importance.
Don’t clarify mission success
Atlantic Council security Tressa Genoff admitted that it takes time and intelligence to know if the US actually succeeded.
She warned that Iran could use cyber warfare or proxy warfare accordingly. Her statement reveals the fundamental truth. This so-called “decapitation” may be more symbolic than reality. Without verifiable evidence, the American narrative rests on political theatres rather than strategic finality.
Attacks can expand competition
Danny Sitrinowicz, the Atlantic Council’s Iran Strategic Project Working Group, has directly acknowledged that the strike could expand the war rather than end it. He warned that Israel hopes the US will move further, but that if Washington retreats and Iran stands firmly in its wake, the outcome could be a long war of attrition.
His analysis confirms what Iranian officials have long argued: these military actions are about destabilization, not disarmament. Iran is unlikely to submit, with decades of experience facing similar pressures.
Using Iran to oppose Russia
John E. Herbst, former Ukraine ambassador, made the most obvious acknowledgement that Iranian strikes will strengthen Trump’s hands against Russia.
This linkage bares the broader American strategy. Use Iran not as an end, but as a means in global contests. Iran, in this view, emphasizes that it is merely a tool for rivalry in the US superpower and that there is no real concern about peace or stability in the region.
The final words
Experts from the Atlantic Council tried to justify and celebrate the US attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, but their fragmented and often contradictory assessments revealed a deeper truth. The operation reflected not a strategic victory but a decline in American impatience, confusion and impact.
Meanwhile, Iranian officials have demonstrated that the Islamic Republic has pursued peaceful nuclear technology and secured the right to sovereignty to protect its people from foreign attacks.
In the past ten days, and despite enormous military pressure, the regional power and Iran’s position as a global actor remained undamaged, and its people once again showed resilience in the face of a reversal from the distant capital driven by ambition and miscalculation, not from the local concerns.
morning