Daniel Smilov's comment:
The US intervened directly in Israel's war with Iran, and this is a fact that will have enormous significance for world politics. The intervention is a huge risk for President Trump, who in the first six months of his term managed to do the exact opposite of almost everything he promised.
Not only was the war in Ukraine not stopped in 24 hours, but Russia is using the goodwill of the US administration to escalate its military actions and demands. Trump's tariffs have thrown the global economy into uncertainty, not least because no one knows exactly what is happening. Big trade "deals" Trump's actions are more like smoke, behind which the loss of international authority of the United States is visible. And this negatively affects both the interest rates on US government bonds and the economy in general - the probability of a slowdown and even a recession is very high. The latest unfulfilled promise is entering a major war in the Middle East.
Trump's rapidly falling rating and the turmoil he is creating in the MAGA movement with his military actions show that his operation in Iran must be an unconditional success in order for him to stabilize his political position. The world is also facing a major dilemma - if the US fails in Iran, its international authority will collapse and this will have dramatic consequences for Europe, and also for Bulgaria.
The options are as follows:
Option 1: Iran sits at the negotiating table
The successful option for Trump and Israel is a rapid de-escalation of the conflict, in which the Iranian leadership decides to retain its power, gain time, but temporarily back down from its plans for a nuclear program and military support for its proxies in the region. The regime in Iran is very weakened at the moment and this seems to be the rational action. The goal of the US intervention in the conflict is the physical destruction of nuclear facilities that are clearly of military use. It is undeniable that Iran is enriching uranium for military purposes and that it is seeking to acquire technologies that would make creating a bomb a matter of weeks. At least for now, it seems that the bombing by the US and Israel is dramatically slowing this process.
If Iran admits defeat and sits down at the negotiating table, Trump and Israel will have a temporarily peaceful Middle East in which Iran's regional ambitions for military and political influence will be dramatically limited. The US and Israeli operation will continue until the destruction of the regime's military infrastructure in Tehran, and especially its ability to launch ballistic missiles at its neighbors.
If this option is implemented, the US will gain time and be in a better negotiating position in other serious international conflicts. First, Russia will have one thing in mind, and having already lost Iran as a serious ally, it may be more willing to negotiate over Ukraine. Second, the international authority of the US as a superpower will be confirmed, which will also give the US financial advantages in dealing with its huge national debt. Third, China will be closely monitoring events and may reconsider the timing of its possible aggressive actions to seize Taiwan.
While the US actions will certainly raise questions related to international law, the Americans have a good argument for their intervention, and that is Iran's actions on its nuclear program. Ultimately, many around the world - from Saudi Arabia to Europe - will breathe a sigh of relief if the ayatollahs' regime is reliably deprived of the ability to have atomic bombs. And ultimately, there are no parallels here with Putin's war in Ukraine, which is a war for territory. From this point of view, this option would also be the most favorable for an international order based on rules and treaties.
Option 2: Iran becomes a multimillion-strong militia
The second option is for Iran not to surrender despite the loss of its military infrastructure and a large part of its army's command staff. Although crippled and with severely limited capabilities, the regime could transform into something like a network of independent armed groups, partially coordinated by a military-religious leadership. Something like an Islamic State 2. This option is likely because neither the US nor Israel seem to have any intention of ground operations in Iran. Moreover, Iran's resources will continue to be significant, as China buys Iranian oil in large quantities. Russia and China have no advantage in a complete victory for the US and Israel, and this makes the second option quite likely.
This option would be tragic for the Iranians themselves, because it would mean that their country would go the way of Syria and Iraq. This option could also lead to the complete destabilization of the Middle East through a series of civil and international wars and huge masses of refugees.
All this instability would mean that the United States would have to devote enormous attention and resources to the region, keeping troops, aircraft carriers, and other expensive equipment there. These troops would be subject to terrorist and other attacks, but in any case, the cost of this option for the United States would be quite high.
It is also likely that the price of oil would be unstable, which would create even greater unpredictability in the global economy. This option is not beneficial for Europe and Ukraine, because all US attention will be focused on the Middle East, and Ukraine will be simply a bargaining chip for Russian non-involvement on the side of Iranian militants.
Option 3: Escalation of the conflict with the participation of other superpowers
The conflict has the potential to escalate if Iran tries to block or stop oil exports from the Persian Gulf. Then the interests of many other countries will be seriously threatened and the consequences will become absolutely unpredictable.
The price of oil in this case could skyrocket, and dealing with such a crisis would require enormous efforts and wisdom, which seem to be in short supply at the moment.
Option 4: Iran democratizes and pacifies
This is the best option, but in terms of probability it is the last among the options, alas.
Europe has no time to waste
The worrying thing about the situation is that, as with the US intervention in Iraq, a military conflict is being entered into without a clear plan for its conclusion. There are options in which this conflict stops in a short period of time, but they are not the only ones. Moreover, in the Iraq War, the US invested in regime change through a ground operation with a vision for the post-war governance of Iraq. Now there is no such vision, and its absence suggests that it is betting on Iran's ungovernability. Such a gigantic experiment has not been done so far, or at least not with good results. There are not many examples of major countries that have surrendered because of air bombings and missile strikes. Ukraine has been at war with Russia for four years, although Russia is also conducting large-scale ground operations in addition to air strikes. Germany and Japan did not surrender in World War II because of bombings - in the Japanese case, the decisive factors were the US nuclear weapons and Stalin's ground threat.
From the European perspective, the conclusion is generally the same in all scenarios: the US will be continuously engaged in other regions and Europe must achieve military autonomy. This requires not so much money, which is still being spent in large quantities by European countries, but coordination and unity. Otherwise, even if defense spending were to triple, the effect would be slow and weak. The US's entry into war in the Middle East is yet another reminder of this strategic necessity, but this reminder should not degenerate into whining about how weak Europe is. This is neither true nor useful.
But there is no time to waste.