Why the US Isn't Bombing Iran — Expert Reveals the Reason
Lt. Col. (res.) Amit Yagur, in an article for Maariv, explains that US restraint in striking Iran is not weakness but part of a long-term strategy of 'hostile takeover': preserving infrastructure and institutions for future reconstruction, avoiding the scenarios of Iraq or Libya.
Lt. Col. (res.) Amit Yagur, in an article for Maariv, analyzes US strategy toward Iran. In his view, Washington's delays and restraint are not a sign of weakness but an element of a long-term 'hostile takeover' strategy. The US aims to change Iran's leadership while preserving functioning institutions and infrastructure to avoid turning the country into an economic burden, as happened in Iraq or Libya. Yagur draws a parallel with the model that Secretary of State Marco Rubio applied in Venezuela: managing a crisis-stricken country remotely through control of financial flows and energy licenses. The key task is to 'immobilize the driver without wrecking the car.' However, implementing this model in Iran is more difficult because the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is embedded in all sectors of the economy. To address this, targeted strikes on top leadership, signals to the middle tier about retaining their place in the new system, and a naval blockade to limit oil exports without destroying infrastructure are proposed. Yagur also notes that Iranian youth, oriented toward personal freedom, may support a transitional authority.