Decoding Murphy's fury

Recently, U.S. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy posed serious questions to Donald Trump regarding the “costs” and “benefits” of the U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow and Natanz. His questions are based on several key assumptions:

- The Fordow facility was not completely destroyed in the U.S. strike;

- The costs of Trump’s decision far outweighed any potential gains;

- Iran’s retaliatory missile attack on the U.S. Al-Udeid base imposed heavy costs on Washington.

Chris Murphy is not the only political figure criticizing Trump over this issue. From CNN and The New York Times to security-media sources close to the Pentagon, many have acknowledged that Trump made a grave miscalculation in assessing the consequences of engaging militarily with Iran — a misjudgment that ultimately forced him to back down and halt the war. This assessment is not difficult to frame.

In response to his country’s cowardly and barbaric attacks on Iran’s Natanz and Fordow nuclear facilities, Trump initially claimed that bunker-busting bombers had destroyed the sites. But within minutes of his remarks, many Western and Israeli analysts began challenging his claims based on existing evidence and documentation.

Things escalated to the point where even the Pentagon chief and the much-despised, child-killing prime minister of the Zionist regime expressed uncertainty about whether Iran’s nuclear infrastructure — especially at Fordow — had actually been destroyed.

The narrative pushed by the Americans and Israelis about the “total destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure” quickly gave way to ambiguity. On the other side of the equation, however, the picture was entirely different:

With remarkable confidence and dignity, the Islamic Republic of Iran, for the second time since World War II, launched missile attacks on U.S. regional bases. The first time was the missile strike on the Ain al-Asad base in Iraq, which hosted U.S. troops, following the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani.

In this latest development, the Zionist regime could no longer conceal its fear and anxiety over Iran’s promised and inevitable retaliation. What we are witnessing is a dual reality that cannot be easily overlooked: uncertainty about the extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities vs. the absolute certainty of Iran’s harsh response to Washington and Tel Aviv.

This blend of relativity and certainty reveals the foolish and doomed gamble Trump made in confronting the Iranian government and people.

Moreover, Trump has already paid — and will continue to pay — a heavy political and security price for his failed and futile mission. Playing on the Zionists’ turf turned out to be the worst possible decision by the frightened American president.

Today, even some of Trump’s own allies believe that Netanyahu and Tel Aviv have become code names for the downfall and disgrace of Washington.