Washington and Tehran -
In the context of the escalating tone of threat and intimidation between Israel and Iran amid an escalation between the two sides in several arenas in the region, Al Jazeera Net spoke to two American and Iranian strategic experts about the prospects of this escalation and its consequences, and whether it could lead to a confrontation between the two sides.
Matthew Kronig: The current tension is occurring at a time when Iran is only one to two years away from having a nuclear bomb (Al-Jazeera)
American strategic expert Matthew Kronig: For these reasons, Israel is taking matters into its own hands with Iran
While serving as an advisor to US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates from 2010 to 2011, Matthew Kronig developed strategic options to counter Iran's nuclear program.
Kronig called for attacking Iran at the time, stressing that this is the best option instead of waiting for years and confronting a stronger and better armed Iran in the future.
Today, Kronig is director of the Scowcroft Strategic Initiative at the Atlantic Institute in Washington, in addition to heading the council's research unit, and it seems he remains convinced.
Kronig previously held many positions in the Department of Defense (the Pentagon) and the US intelligence services during the administrations of George Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, including within the strategic planning team for US policy in the Middle East in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and also worked on the strategic assessment team of the Agency Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Kronig blames the administration of President Joe Biden "for the roughness and deterioration of Washington's relations with Gulf capitals, in contrast to his predecessor Donald Trump's embrace of America's traditional partners in the region, and this was reflected in Abraham's agreements between Israel and a number of Arab countries, and after Biden ignored the region, this pushed Straight to opening up to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Chinese President Xi Jinping. You can't blame countries in the region for looking out for their interests, and if Washington isn't there for them, those countries will need to look elsewhere."
Kronig believes that "his country's relations with the Gulf states serve the interests of both sides. Washington benefits from its military presence there, as the Middle East is central to the world, and the presence of American forces there allows the Pentagon to deter and contain Iran, and conduct counter-terrorism operations in the region, in addition to achieving stability." in the energy markets.
Kronig cites "the flow of a large part of the American military force in Afghanistan back and forth through bases in the Gulf."
And while Kronig believes that Washington should shift some of its power from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific region, he stresses the need to maintain a significant military presence, especially if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, which he eventually expects to happen.
Scenarios of an Israeli-Iranian confrontation
In a question to Al-Jazeera Net about the new current tension between Israel and Iran, and how it differs from what observers have been accustomed to from the tension between the two parties over the past four decades, Kroenig stressed that "the current tension between Israel and Iran is new for two reasons. First, this happens in a Middle East context in which it plays The United States has a less than usual role in shaping regional geopolitics, while the administration of former President Donald Trump has devoted significant resources to pressuring Iran, supporting Israel, and repairing Arab-Israeli relations, for its part, the administration of President Joe Biden has been busy trying to salvage a nuclear agreement with the regime. Bad in Tehran, so Israel started to take matters into its own hands."
Second, according to the expert, Kronig, this tension occurs at a time when Iran is only one to two years away from obtaining a nuclear bomb, with the possibility that the rate of reaching a new nuclear agreement with the United States is very small.
Iran and its hard-line stance, is encouraged by the fact that it is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Israel, for its part, is determined to do what is necessary, including the use of military force if necessary, to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
Regarding the possibilities of a real war between Israel and Iran, and what are the expected scenarios and arenas if it occurs, Kronig considered that “the possibilities of war between the two parties are realistic, especially since the diplomatic path to reach a new nuclear agreement has ended and has already died on one hand. On the other hand, We find Israel determined to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. With Iran close to acquiring a nuclear weapon, we cannot rule out the possibility of a preemptive Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, which would lead to a direct military conflict between these regional powers, Israel and Iran."
Kronbea considered that the effects of the repeated Israeli military maneuvers that simulate attacks on Iranian targets are "confirmation that Israel does not want Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. The maneuvers indicate that Iran will likely face huge military consequences if it tries to rush towards acquiring a nuclear weapon. While This may raise tensions, but it should not be seen as a sudden or drastic escalation."
Israel is not alone
Crowing believes that the recent improvement in Israeli-Gulf military cooperation affects the scope and nature of tension between Iran and Israel, and says that "the Abrahamic agreements, and increased Israeli-Arab military cooperation, should send Iran a clear message that it faces a more united front in opposing its activities in the region." While this may cause uneasiness in Tehran, it makes sense for Israel and the Gulf states to cooperate in challenging their common adversary.
And about the extent of the Israeli army’s readiness for a war on several fronts, such as Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, if the security environment continues to deteriorate in the region, Kroeing pointed out that “the scenario of a multi-front war is very difficult, but Israel has developed capabilities, such as the (Iron Dome) missile defense system.” Which will allow Israel to manage the consequences of such a conflict very effectively in the event of a major war."
And about the reasons that might ignite a direct or proxy war between Israel and Iran’s allies such as Hezbollah or Hamas, Kronig said that “the most likely path to such a conflict is a US or Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. In response, it is likely For Iran to respond directly, it will also ask its proxies to launch attacks against American and Israeli interests.”
Regarding the scenario that the Biden administration will follow in the event of a direct war between Israel and Iran, the former military and intelligence official confirmed that Washington “will provide support to Israel in the event of any conflict with Iran, and depending on the circumstances, the United States may intervene directly using military force.”
Excluding war at the current stage.. Iranian strategic expert: We have tried war with Israel
On the other hand, Mansour Haqiqatpour, former advisor to the presidency of the Iranian parliament, former leader of the Revolutionary Guards and former assistant to General Qassem Soleimani, former commander of the Quds Force, believes that "the escalating tension between the Zionist-American axis with Iran stems from the constants of the Iranian revolution that broke the American hegemony and vowed to eliminate the occupation entity."
Haqiqat Pour described - in his speech to Al-Jazeera Net - the Israeli threats to attack Iran as empty and come in the context of flexing muscles to lure the United States into a war whose results are not sure, adding that the Iranian Quds Force had previously sent clear messages to the Zionist entity stating that its forces are very close to sensitive installations in Israel.
The former commander of the Revolutionary Guards warned the United States and Israel of the consequences of any uncalculated move against Iran, stressing that "his country has previously prepared a target bank containing hundreds of fixed and moving targets of the enemy, and that they are within the range of Iranian forces' fire."
He called on Israel's leaders to learn a lesson from the Ukrainian crisis, accusing the United States of abandoning Kyiv after it was embroiled in a war with Russia, and describing Washington's aid to Ukraine as neither enriching nor fattening the Ukrainian side, nor exceeding adding fuel to the fire.
Bohr's truth: Israeli threats to attack Iran are empty and come in the context of muscle flexing (communication sites)
Tried front
The former advisor to the Iranian parliament's presidency ruled out that his country would initiate a war against the Israeli entity, adding that the war with the occupation is not new to Iran and that Tehran has previously fought wars with it in southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.
On how the Iranian response to any possible Israeli attack, Haqiqatpour said that Tehran has drawn up practical plans to take disciplinary steps in the event of an attack by the Israeli entity, and that the war may expand to several fronts according to the developments in the conflict.
In response to a question about the nature of the Iranian response to any attack on its nuclear facilities, Haqiqatpour said only that we know the addresses of the Israeli facilities well, describing the Israeli position near the Iranian border as "new, good and close targets."
He added, however, that the normalization of relations with the Israeli enemy by some Arab countries and their permission to establish a foothold in the region is not without risks, and that his country takes these threats into account.
dynamic jurisprudence
The former commander of the Revolutionary Guards indicated that his country does not regret one iota over the development of its nuclear program, stressing that Tehran does not intend to build an atomic bomb according to the fatwa of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, adding that "Shiite jurisprudence is based on vital dynamic foundations," refusing to make further statements. illustration.
He revealed prior coordination between the episodes of the resistance axis - extending from Iran to Iraq through Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip to Yemen - regarding the response to any war that any of these episodes might be exposed to, explaining that Iran had previously conducted many maneuvers simulating lightning strikes on American and Israeli goals, and there is no need to respond to the continuous Israeli maneuvers with similar maneuvers.
No war in sight
The former assistant to the former commander of the Quds Force expresses his conviction in the efficacy of the "stern and intelligent response on several fronts" in fortifying his country against potential attacks, stressing the need to teach the enemy a lesson that will make him regret and keep the specter of war away from his country for many years.
The Iranian strategist concluded that war on Iran is not at the present time, because the United States is not ready to push in this direction, and that Israel does not dare to take risks alone without obtaining a greener light from Washington.