In the early hours of the last day of February, the moment of truth arrived for the theocratic mullah regime in Tehran. For nearly 45 years, this undemocratic, chronically authoritarian structure—prone to terror tactics and the continuous export of violent influence across the Persian Gulf—was considered an almost untouchable fortress, avoided by almost everyone in the region.
However, Iran’s ambitious program to develop increasingly long-range ballistic missiles, combined with uranium enrichment nearing weapons-grade levels, left the U.S. and Israel with little choice. The timing of the strike seems to have been triggered by a recklessly organized meeting of Iran’s state and military leadership, creating an opportunity that could not be ignored. A precise Israeli strike, backed by U.S. military support, left Iran virtually leaderless during the operation dubbed “Epic Anger.” According to the U.S. administration, the primary objectives of the coalition’s intervention were:
- Eliminate Iran’s nuclear program.
- Destroy Iran’s capability to further develop ballistic missiles.
- Overthrow theocratic rule in Tehran.
With technologically superior U.S. and Israeli air forces controlling Iranian airspace within the first 24 hours, achieving the first two objectives is now a matter of time and persistence. The third goal—regime change—depends on active support from internal opposition forces, ethnic and religious minorities, and pragmatic elements within the Iranian regime willing to cooperate to preserve their privileges.
In response to the existential threat, Iran launched uncontrolled missile and drone attacks against U.S. bases and installations in the region. Yet, these strikes lacked precision, impacting civilian and economic targets in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Manama, Doha, and other cities, further isolating Tehran and worsening its relations with neighboring states.
Meanwhile, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, threatening about 20% of global oil trade. Financial markets reacted immediately, with oil rising to $90 per barrel and gas to €60 per MWh, though the economic shock is far smaller than the 2022 spike caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Analysts predict the blockade will last only days before U.S. forces restore freedom of navigation, with China and major Asian economies pressuring Tehran to end the disruption.
As in previous crises in Syria and Venezuela, it has become evident that opposing the U.S. while relying on Russia or China is a dangerous strategy. In critical moments, these powers often abandon their allies, offering only hollow statements and cynical moralizing. The world is reminded once again that conflicts are resolved by global powers—today, the United States remains the sole superpower. The United Nations primarily serves as a discussion platform and humanitarian relief distributor, not as a conflict resolver.
Yet, Serbia’s leadership continues to ignore these lessons. By presenting itself as “neutral” regarding the Gulf war, Aleksandar Vučić indirectly blames the United States while signaling to his supporters that Serbia must invest more in armaments to deter potential aggressors. His failure to bolster defense after Russia’s attack on Ukraine reveals that Vučić now perceives the main threat to Serbia as coming exclusively from the democratic West.
Serbia’s media, under Vučić’s influence, continues to warn of Europe’s decline, despite India and China buying most of the energy resources from conflict regions. Past efforts to acquire advanced weaponry, such as Russia’s S-400 system, highlight the futility of relying on opportunistic military purchases over strategic alliances. Serbia lacks the technical capacity and military integrity to withstand a modern airstrike, making NATO membership the most effective defense.
Vučić’s paranoia reflects a deep disdain for democracy and human rights. This destructive and clientelist approach isolates Serbia, undermines its economic and political partnerships, and prevents the country from participating in regional security and governance frameworks. Unlike Iran, Serbia lacks geopolitical autonomy or the resources to survive in long-term isolation. Its regime and the values it promotes will never gain sustainable support from the West, ensuring eventual systemic collapse.
The lesson is clear: Serbia’s moment of truth will arrive sooner than Vučić anticipates. When it does, citizens must have the political maturity and courage to choose a European future over continued national self-isolation.
