War by mistake Experts put a scenario for a possible confrontation in the Gulf

Mohammed al-Menshawi, Washington

After the New York Times quoted an American intelligence source as saying that Washington had obtained images showing complete missiles equipped with naval parts at various Iranian ports, the pictures were evidence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's readiness to attack the US fleet in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea.

Some American experts believe that a misreading of the other side's intentions would increase the risk of military clashes not being pursued by the US and Iran.

The waters of the Gulf and the Arabian Sea are increasingly strained between Iran and the United States after Washington sent more advanced naval parts, including the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, as well as B-52 giant bombers and more Patriot batteries, in a show of force and as a precaution against any Iranian threats.

Risk of misjudgment
The former US State Department official and Wilson Institute researcher David Aaron Miller is surprised to see Iran escalating its threats to Washington and its allies: "Does Iran have the capability to launch its ballistic missiles from small boats? Why does Tehran risk exposing its arsenal of missiles in the range of hostile fire, The threat of American attacks is only possible in the Trump world. "

The Iranian expert and Georgetown University professor Jim Sercino also believe there are no Iranian threats to the United States. Sercino thanked hundreds of activists, journalists, politicians and experts who "raised their voices in protest to stop the threat of John Bolton, which prompted Trump not to adopt the opinion of his national security adviser."

US President Donald Trump said in a clear message in a direct message that he did not want war with Iran. Sercino said Trump's stance came at a time of pause and seemed to have a significant impact, and was a temporary buffer for those who wanted to spark a war with Tehran.

However, Sercino warned, "Trump may continue to be tempted to resort to the military option for some time, but it will not last for months, while Bolton dominates the National Security Institute in the White House substantially, and if it is not severely curtailed soon, On Iran. "

The European allies, as many in the Washington circles believe, believe that the Trump administration is behind the recent escalation, not the other way around, which prompted Iran to take precautionary measures, according to US expert Sercino.

Some experts believe that the real tension in relations with Tehran has begun with the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal, and the subsequent arrival of John Bolton as national security adviser, a man known for his desire for war and regime change in Tehran.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will brief Congressional leaders on the latest developments in the Gulf, and asks: "What will Pompeo tell Congress?" Will he tell them that the escalation began with the reinstatement of sanctions since the withdrawal from the nuclear agreement? From inside Iran, will Bolton use intelligence in a way that suggests real risks from Iran? "

"There is a complex network that is pushing for a war with Iran in Washington and only wants to change the regime in Tehran," according to Sercino.

War scenario
Ilan Goldberg, director of the Middle East program at the new US National Security Center, presented several scenarios for a war of error as follows:

First, the Trump administration's claim that Iran's deployment of missiles on sea and boat parts is an escalation by Tehran. But the fact is that it only reflects the misreading and understanding of the messages of the other party, which may lead to war, although the behavior of the parties is essentially defensive and precautionary.

Second, Iranians keep missiles and mines in warehouses scattered across Iran. When tension mounts, Tehran faces a big and complicated dilemma if these stores are attacked. They lose everything they have. They use missiles, mines and boats on boats, boats and naval parts. Various places and ports.

Third: This seems to be what has happened in recent days and weeks. Since Washington withdrew from the nuclear deal and imposed more pressure and sanctions on Tehran, the US talk of changing the Iranian regime has increased. Tehran began to believe that Washington might be preparing for war, so they deployed their missiles and mines in their boats and naval fleet in the Gulf.

Fourth: Washington saw these steps as an escalation and a readiness to launch attacks. From here, Washington moved early enough to be ready to launch preemptive attacks to protect its interests, installations and bases. The Iranians do not understand the US defensive moves in this way, but rather their belief that the Trump administration is preparing for war. This is followed by the Iranians' rush to complete the deployment of their arsenal so that they can protect their facilities and interests, which leads to more messages of escalation to the American side.

The above is a classic serious dilemma in the calculations of military confrontations, especially with the firm belief of military experts and specialists in war theories that there is always the advantage and opportunity for those who start fighting. Hence, the misperception comes from both sides, which increases the risk of outbreaks of battles that the parties do not want.

Red lines not crossed by Iran
Various US government studies indicate that Washington has designed a clear military strategy to deal with the Iranian regime since the success of the Iranian revolution 40 years ago, based on Tehran's respect for three red lines.

Tehran knows that bypassing any of these lines will lead Washington to launch military attacks on Iran. A recent study to serve the Congressional studies indicated that these lines are: preventing Iran from shipping oil through the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran's access to nuclear weapons and a real military threat from Iran to one of Gulf's Gulf allies.

Although Tehran has not crossed any red line, misjudgment by both sides could increase the risk of clashes that will not remain limited in scope or nature, according to Iranian military personnel.