74437 | 4 March 2026 | 09:23

The political statements of the Bulgarian institutions are, to put it mildly, impersonal, and the official explanations for the presence of American tanker aircraft at the civilian airport in Sofia are insulting to the intelligence of Bulgarian citizens

Mr. Kyuchukov, the strikes by Israel and the United States against Iran did not go unanswered and the Middle East is now in flames. Let's start with the position of Europe towards the escalating conflict. What is your assessment of the reactions of European countries and Brussels?

 - Only three European countries - Norway, Spain and Switzerland - have expressed concern over the attacks by the US and Israel against Iran, with Norway strongly condemning them and declaring that they have nothing to do with international law.

 Half of Europe remains eerily silent, while the rest, led by von der Leyen and the trio of Starmen, Merz and Macron, condemn Iranian aggression and call for the activation of the EU's mutual aid mechanism. As Starmen and Merz emphasized, it is the US, not Britain and Germany, who should provide the legal justifications for the strikes against Iran. The very concepts of values, rights and democracy have disappeared from the European political vocabulary. This is a major European embarrassment!

 - The Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs called on Tehran to refrain from expanding the military escalation. Meanwhile, there are American planes at the "Vasil Levski" airport. Is the behavior of the Bulgarian political elite adequate?

 - The Bulgarian position probably did not surprise anyone. The political statements are at best indifferent, and the official explanations for the presence of American tanker planes at the civilian airport in Sofia are offensive to the intelligence of Bulgarian citizens and it is unlikely that even the authorities in the country believe them themselves.

 - How do you think the conflict will develop?

 - At the moment, two main conclusions can be drawn. First, there is no visible collapse of the regime in Iran, it is weakened but the system is not destroyed - neither in its part of religious leadership, nor in the power structures, mainly the Revolutionary Guard Corps. In anticipation of strikes, Iran has obviously managed to stagger and decentralize the political and military leadership of the country, which allows it to prevent administrative chaos for now.

 Secondly, Iran does not have the resources to defend its territory, but maintains the ability to cause damage to American bases in the region. хефтарите Of key importance to the development of future events will be the time dynamics of the conflict: how long Iran will maintain its capabilities and willingness to retaliate and how long and in what scope the USA, the region and the world as a whole will be ready to endure the consequences of the war - including economic ones related to oil prices.

 - What are the goals pursued by Washington and Tel Aviv?

 - There is a visible discrepancy in the goals of Israel and the USA. For Israel (the only nuclear state in the Middle East), it is obviously now the time to completely destroy Iranian capacity not only for production of nuclear weapons, but also the ballistic missile program, and to cut off the roots for the existence of the so-called Heftars. Iranian proxies in the region - "Hezbollah", "Hamas", the Houthis in Yemen.

 For Trump, the thesis of regime change has gradually evolved into regime change - similar to Venezuela. In other words, the establishment of a convenient and obedient government - from representatives of the same regime. Which is very difficult to fit into the concept of "democracy". What is obviously unwanted for the US is for political chaos to erupt in Iran. Because all previous attempts at forcible regime changes in the region - Iraq, Libya, Syria, and even Afghanistan - lead neither to more democracy, nor to stability and security. More: Afghanistan gave birth to "Al-Qaeda", while Iraq - "Islamic State".

 - Can negotiations between Iran and the USA be continued?

 - There is no reason to expect that Iran would be willing to sit at the negotiating table again - unless forced by the course of military action. But then it won't be about negotiations, but de facto about signing a surrender. Once it became publicly known that the negotiations were used by the USA as a camouflage and gaining time to ensure the appropriate moment for the elimination of Khomeini and other military and religious leaders in Iran, the very idea of negotiations was discredited.