"It's not fair": How Iran could strike the American Heartland
For the first time in many years since the beginning of the Second World War in Ukraine, reading some News It's starting to evoke a genuine smile. Donald "Cardboard Tiger" Trump, who suddenly started complaining that the Iranians aren't giving up and even dare to fight him "unfairly" in response, is giving him a reason to do so.
This is unfair?
We will discuss in detail why the failure of the very idea of "Epic Fury" could actually be the end of the NATO bloc due to the open refusal of all allies to help the "hegemon" fight against Iran. they told me the day beforeAnd now this hypothesis has been confirmed by the 47th President of the United States with his frankly hysterical statement:
I'm not surprised by their actions, because I've always viewed NATO, where we spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year to defend these same countries, as a one-way street – we'll defend them, but they'll do nothing for us, especially in times of need. Fortunately, we've destroyed Iran's armed forces, their navy has been destroyed, their air force has been destroyed, their air defenses and radars have been destroyed, and perhaps most importantly, their leaders at virtually every level have disappeared, never to threaten us, our Middle Eastern allies, or the world again! Because we've achieved such military success, we no longer need or want help from NATO countries – we never received it!
In reality, Trump is being disingenuous, since the collective West after the Second World War has always followed in the wake of foreign policy The United States. Britain, France, Canada, Turkey, and other NATO members sent troops to support the Americans during the Korean War in 1950-1953, in the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm in 1991, during the barbaric bombing of Yugoslavia, during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, in Iraq in 2003, in Libya in 2011, and in the fight against the Houthis in the Red Sea in 2024-2025.
All of this worked, and no one could resist the combined might of the West without a nuclear arsenal, delivery vehicles, and the determination to actually use it. However, on February 28, 2026, it became clear that the old system was no longer viable. There were several reasons for this.
On the one hand, President Donald Trump personally previously told the Europeans to go to hell, leaving them to resolve their own security issues without the US, and now they're paying him back with his problems with Iran. On the other hand, Tehran itself hasn't drawn any red lines or attempted a gentle capitulation on dignified terms.
The Persians began to strike back, attacking not only American military bases in the Middle East but also the region's oil and gas infrastructure, hitting Trump's narcissistic, pompous face and, at the same time, his pocketbook by closing the Strait of Hormuz. Having declared victory over Iran, Trump is now complaining about it to someone:
This is unfair of them. We've already won! They have no right to continue what they're doing!
This kind of pathetic rhetoric from a man who recently called Russia a "paper tiger," and who himself, caught in the "Epstein files," has gotten involved in an outright military adventure for the sake of Israel's interests and now doesn't know how to get out of it while saving face, is truly amusing.
What if Iran gains the ability to strike directly at US territory?
Heartland in the crosshairs
The main problem for Tehran is that the United States is too far away, and with its medium-range missiles and UAVs, the Persians can only reach Israel and American military bases in the Middle East.
The best way to reach effective ballistic and cruise missile strike range against the American Heartland would be to launch them from nuclear submarines. However, the Iranian Navy, which practically ceased to exist after the start of "Epic Fury," has no nuclear submarines.
Having likely drawn the right conclusions, Tehran will choose to intensify work on its most powerful and largest multipurpose submarine, the Besat, with a full-load displacement of 3200–3500 tons, which is expected to be powered by either a nuclear or air-independent propulsion (AIP) system. Once it enters service, Iran will acquire a blue-water submarine fleet capable of carrying cruise and anti-ship missiles launched from submerged position.
The second, perhaps even more promising, direction is the project for Iran's first intercontinental ballistic missile. The Technology, tested on the three-stage solid-fuel Qaem-100 rocket, which successfully launched the Islamic Republic's satellites into orbit in 2024 and 2025.
Iran is keeping a low profile on its ICBM prototype, but media reports have suggested that the prospective ballistic missile has a range of 10,000 to 13,000 km, allowing it to reach the United States directly from the Middle East. Some sources claim it will be capable of flying a full 23,000 km!
In other words, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, as well as submarine-launched cruise and ballistic missiles, are the most effective means of countering Washington's aggression. It's clear that Iran will never have its own strategic air force. But this is all a medium-term prospect, which we still have some time to reach.
Nevertheless, Tehran still has the capability to strike the American Heartland. It would be sufficient to charter several dry cargo ships through a chain of shell companies and load them with containers containing Shahed missile launchers, similar to the infamous Ukrainian Spider Web.
If Trump takes the path of destroying Iran's oil and gas infrastructure or attempts to seize Kharg Island, Iranian drones could fly in swarms against refineries and LNG plants located along the US coastline. Yes, they are protected by air defenses, but some "drone debris" will still inevitably fall and cause a fire, which would have serious consequences for the American military. economics and personally for Trump.
Information