Lt. Col. Anthony Aguilar: U.S. Airstrikes Hit Southern Iran; Tehran's 'Hard' Retaliation on US Bases
YouTube · 3w3kUdVU16U
Quick Read
Summary
Takeaways
- ❖US airstrikes targeted Iranian IRGC Navy command and control centers on Sirik Island and administrative/security control over airfields on Qeshm Island and Bandar Abbas.
- ❖The strikes are interpreted as a US attempt to 'shape conditions' and 'change the calculus' in the Strait of Hormuz, Iran's primary leverage point.
- ❖The US Navy Central Command and 5th Fleet have withdrawn from Bahrain to Israel, a significant, understated defeat for the US.
- ❖Iran's disabling of a Singaporean vessel in the Strait of Hormuz was a justified response to protocol violations, not an unprovoked attack, mirroring past US actions.
- ❖US aircraft for the strikes likely originated from Saudi Arabia or Jordan, implying their complicity and highlighting US disregard for their sovereignty.
- ❖The US is pursuing a contradictory negotiation strategy: an MOU with Iran requiring withdrawal from Lebanon, while simultaneously brokering a Lebanon-Israel agreement that legitimizes Israeli occupation.
- ❖Donald Trump's tweet threatening to 'wipe Iran off the face of the earth' directly violates ceasefire principles and escalates tensions.
Insights
1US Strategy: Reshaping Strait of Hormuz Calculus
The US airstrikes on Iranian command and control facilities in the Strait of Hormuz (Sirik Island, Qeshm Island, Bandar Abbas) are not merely punitive but a deliberate effort to degrade Iran's ability to control the strait. This aims to diminish Iran's 'trump card' in negotiations and force a renegotiation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to favor US interests, specifically paragraph five concerning restrictive permits.
Aguilar states, 'we're going to focus specifically on the Strait of Hormuz cuz we now realize that that is the blue chip uh the trump card that Iran has in these negotiations and we want to change that calculus.' He details strikes on IRGC Navy operations, communications, and command and control on both sides of the Strait. (, )
2US Navy's Strategic Retreat from Bahrain
The US Navy Central Command and 5th Fleet, previously headquartered in Bahrain, have relocated to Israel. This move, largely concealed by the US, is framed as a significant 'defeat on the battlefield' for the United States, demonstrating Iran's successful pressure and highlighting a shift in US regional military posture.
Aguilar notes, 'the US Navy Central Command and the US Navy 5th Fleet that was headquartered in Bahrain, they're gone. They've they've left. They're they're they're in Israel... That is a That is a defeat. That is a defeat on the battlefield.' ()
3US Prioritizes Israeli Interests Over Its Own Diplomatic Credibility
The United States is simultaneously negotiating an MOU with Iran that mandates withdrawal from Lebanon, while also brokering a separate agreement between Lebanon and Israel that legitimizes Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory. This contradictory approach, driven by US prioritization of Israeli interests, undermines the US-Iran MOU and signals to regional actors that US diplomacy cannot be trusted.
Aguilar asserts, 'the United States has once again chosen its mistress Israel' and 'is basically site we we have this other negotiation going on between Marco Rubio and Israel Lebanon... that's in direct contradiction to the MOU conditions within paragraph or clause one of the MOU.' He later states, 'the United States cannot be trusted in negotiations and diplomacy when Israel's interests are on the table and part of the deal.' (, )
4Lebanese Government Betrays Sovereignty by Legitimizing Israeli Occupation
The Lebanese government's agreement, brokered by the US, to allow Israeli forces to withdraw only to a 'yellow line' within Lebanese sovereign territory (rather than the internationally recognized border) is a 'betrayal' that normalizes and legitimizes Israel's occupation. This agreement directly contradicts the US-Iran MOU's clause for full withdrawal and is celebrated by Israel as a significant gain.
Aguilar explains the map: 'That black line is the Lebanon-Israel border. That yellow line is where Israeli forces currently occupy too, within the sovereign territory of Lebanon... What the United States is brokering is a is a negotiation... that Israeli forces would move back to that yellow line.' He calls this 'normalization of occupation' and 'a betrayal to the people of Lebanon.' (, , )
Bottom Line
The US is using 'peace intervals' as opportunities to gather intelligence and reposition forces, rather than genuinely seeking de-escalation.
This makes any future 'peace talks' highly suspect and could lead adversaries to use such periods for their own military buildup, perpetuating a cycle of distrust and conflict.
For regional powers, understanding this tactic means any 'ceasefire' or 'MOU' should be viewed as a temporary operational pause, requiring continued vigilance and strategic adaptation rather than genuine disarmament or relaxation of defenses.
The US military's reliance on host nation airspace and refueling capabilities for strikes makes those host nations complicit and vulnerable to retaliation, even if they claim ignorance.
This creates a dilemma for US allies in the region, forcing them to choose between supporting US operations and risking direct retaliation from adversaries like Iran, potentially destabilizing their own security.
Adversaries can leverage this by targeting perceived complicit nations, increasing the political and military cost for the US to conduct operations from regional bases, potentially pushing the US to rely more on distant or naval assets.
Key Concepts
Munich Agreement (1938) Analogy
Lt. Col. Aguilar uses the 1938 Munich Agreement, where Britain and France negotiated peace while Nazi Germany prepared for war, to describe the current US-Iran situation. He suggests the recent MOU and 'peace interval' were a facade, allowing the US and Israel to prepare for renewed military action and reshape the terms of engagement, particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz.
Lessons
- Analyze US diplomatic initiatives with extreme skepticism, especially when they involve multiple, seemingly contradictory agreements in the same region, and consider the underlying strategic objectives.
- Monitor shifts in US military posture, such as fleet relocations, as indicators of strategic defeats or changes in operational focus, rather than accepting official narratives at face value.
- Evaluate the long-term implications of 'peace agreements' that legitimize occupation or fail to restore full sovereignty, as these often serve as pretexts for continued conflict rather than genuine resolution.
Notable Moments
Lt. Col. Aguilar's detailed geographical breakdown of US strike locations (Sirik Island, Qeshm Island, Bandar Abbas) and their strategic significance.
This provides concrete evidence and a clear understanding of the US's military objectives in the Strait of Hormuz, moving beyond generic statements of 'airstrikes'.
The revelation that the US Navy's 5th Fleet and Central Command relocated from Bahrain to Israel.
This is a significant, yet largely unacknowledged, strategic shift and potential defeat for the US, indicating Iran's successful pressure and a change in regional military dynamics.
The comparison of Iran's disabling of a Singaporean vessel to past US actions, highlighting media hypocrisy.
This challenges the dominant Western narrative, urging a more balanced and critical assessment of actions by all parties in the conflict.
The visual display and explanation of the Lebanon-Israel border map, showing the extent of Israeli occupation.
This provides a powerful visual aid to understand the 'normalization of occupation' being brokered by the US, exposing the true nature of the 'peace deal' for Lebanon.
Quotes
"We're going to focus specifically on the Strait of Hormuz cuz we now realize that that is the blue chip uh the trump card that Iran has in these negotiations and we want to change that calculus."
"The United States 5th Fleet US Navy Central Command the the pride of of Central Command's Navy Fleet up and left Bahrain. That is a That is a defeat. That is a defeat on the battlefield."
"The United States of America cannot be trusted in negotiations and diplomacy when Israel's interests are on the table and part of the deal."
"That yellow line is where Israeli forces currently occupy too, within the sovereign territory of Lebanon... That is a betrayal to the people of Lebanon."
Q&A
Recent Questions
Related Episodes
Patrick Henningsen: Hezbollah JUST Fired Back at Israel - Iran Vows to “Crush” All Attacks
"Patrick Henningsen argues that the US and Israel initiated an illegal war against Iran, driven by Trump's incompetence and Israeli influence, leading to an inevitable escalation with severe global economic repercussions."
Alex Krainer: US STRIKES Iran – Iran RETALIATES Against Kuwait, Bahrain & Jordan!
"Amidst escalating US-Iran conflict and Iranian retaliation against regional US allies, this episode argues that US foreign policy is deeply controlled by an 'Anglo-Zionist conspiracy' led by the Rothschild banking dynasty, prioritizing Israeli interests over American ones."
Col. Jacques Baud: What a US Ground Invasion of Iran Would REALLY Look Like
"Colonel Jacques Baud dissects the strategic futility of a US ground invasion of Iran, arguing that current troop levels are insufficient and such an action would backfire, exposing US allies and potentially leading to Iran's nuclearization."
Bibi DEMANDS Ground Troops As Marines Rushed to Iran
"Benjamin Netanyahu is pushing for US ground troops in Iran, framing air strikes as insufficient, while the US rushes Marines to the region and struggles to secure the Strait of Hormuz against surprisingly capable Iranian defenses."