The author begins by stating that his opinion is not a comparison between democratic England and the Iranian ayatollah regime, but merely an illustration that bombings do not always break a country's will. As an example, he cites the Battle of Britain, where, despite constant bombings, the English people resisted and ultimately helped win World War II. The author asserts that to overthrow the Iranian regime, it is necessary to change the government and eliminate the Revolutionary Guards, the Islamic Jihad, and militias. He believes that a war of attrition benefits Iran, not the US and Israel, as Iranians are negotiating only to buy time. The author compares the current situation to the 2003 Iraq War, quoting Shimon Peres, who said that wars in the Middle East are like watching a movie in reverse: first come the combat actions, and then they try to understand the deep-rooted causes of the conflict, such as cultural and religious differences. The author notes that almost a month of hostilities has passed, and Iranians are likely already prepared for this. He also mentions the upcoming US elections, where rising gasoline prices and inflation will increase pressure on Donald Trump. The author provides the example of Germany during World War II, where, despite bombings of London and other cities, Britain did not surrender. He emphasizes that bombing missile factories, drones, and military facilities will not lead to victory, and without a ground invasion ('boots on the ground'), the effectiveness of military actions will diminish. The author also notes that Iran, unlike Gaza, did not provoke the same kind of condemnation in the Western world. He also points out that the Iranian ideology, based on martyrdom and resistance, will never surrender. In conclusion, the author cites the example of the Vietnam War, where victory was not achieved by troops, but by television images of dying young men that exhausted the American people.
