LET THE THING BE PRESSED.

According to Curt of Flopping Aces, "Iran Is Losing Its Missiles, Its Money, and Its Nerve … And the World Is Already Planning What Comes Next."  The opening paragraphs suggested that fixed fortifications remain monuments to the stupidity of mankind.

The Islamic Republic’s president has admitted that 1,500 personnel stationed at its missile launchers were killed, confirming devastating losses inside the regime’s most important military force.

Masoud Pezeshkian said some of those personnel had remained inside launcher shelters for months without returning home. He intended to praise their sacrifice and shame what he called “freeloaders” in society.

These were not ordinary infantry losses. Personnel stationed at ballistic-missile launchers include crews trained to transport, erect, prepare, fuel, arm and fire the weapons that form the backbone of the regime’s conventional deterrence.

They also coordinate targeting data, prepare launch sites, operate inside underground missile facilities, conceal equipment and relocate mobile launchers before they can be detected and destroyed.

Those skills take time to develop. Missiles and damaged vehicles can eventually be replaced. Experienced crews capable of operating them under attack cannot be regenerated quickly.

The admission also reveals the effectiveness of American and Israeli intelligence. Mobile launchers are designed to disperse, hide and move rapidly. Underground “missile cities” were presented as nearly untouchable. Losing 1,500 personnel around launcher operations indicates that launch sites, shelters or crews preparing to fire were repeatedly located and struck.

Pezeshkian’s description of personnel remaining underground for months exposes the operational strain. Crews were living under constant threat, with limited rotation and little confidence that leaving their shelters was safe.

That helps explain why the Islamic Republic’s launch tempo declined as the conflict continued. The regime was not merely consuming missile stocks. Its launch infrastructure and the trained personnel needed to operate it were being depleted.

The Islamic Republic has spent decades presenting its missile force as the untouchable foundation of regional deterrence. Pezeshkian has now provided an official number showing that the force was penetrated and suffered heavy specialized losses.

He intended to deliver a speech about sacrifice and unity. He instead admitted how deeply the war damaged the military capability the regime depends on most.

Good.

Now is not the time to go wobbly.

Officials who once promised victory are now discussing how to escape the permanent threat of renewed attack.

The reason is survival pressure.

The war failed to bring the United States or Israel to their knees. Instead, the Islamic Republic lost senior leaders and commanders, suffered severe military damage and demonstrated that its air defences could not reliably protect Tehran or the highest levels of government.

The economic pressure is equally severe. Oil revenue has collapsed under the blockade, the rial has reached record lows, inflation has devastated household purchasing power and the state is struggling to finance reconstruction, subsidies and its own security apparatus.

Inside the regime, factions are fighting over negotiations, responsibility and who has the authority to make concessions. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi faces impeachment threats over contacts with the United States while other officials warn that continued confrontation is economically unsustainable.

This leaves the Islamic Republic trapped between two dangers. Continuing the war risks deeper military destruction, economic collapse and another explosion of public anger. Ending it through concessions would expose decades of resistance propaganda as a catastrophic failure and could demoralize the remaining ideological base.

Jalili’s statement does not mean that he has abandoned the regime’s ideology. It means that even one of its most committed architects of confrontation now recognizes that permanent war threatens the system he spent his career defending.

When the men who demanded escalation begin searching for an exit, the pressure is no longer merely external. It has reached the foundations of the regime.

All of which might be true, and yet the people in charge posture and bluster in a fashion that probably began in the days of Darius I and Xerxes.  And the collapse of the mullahs' reign of terror is not an unmixed blessing.

Israel clearly has an interest in a friendly Iran. A friendly Iran, however, is not the same as a dependent Iran. With nearly 90 million people, enormous oil and gas reserves, a strategic location and a predominantly young population, a free and modern Iran could eventually reemerge as an independent regional power.

Allies can be friendly without sharing the same interests. The question, therefore, is not only whether Israel, the United States and the Gulf states want a free Iran, but also how they will respond when Iran once again develops regional ambitions of its own.

What's that wheeze about countries having permanent interests?  Whatever differences the House of Saud have with whoever is in charge of Iran might date back to the pre-Christian era, and a secular Iranian government might still want to maintain a regional balance of power with a nuclear-armed Pakistan to the east and a nuclear-armed Israel, friendly or not, to the west.