Tel Aviv’s decision to launch a new war against Iran on the thirteenth of June is an imminent catastrophe. None of them, including the Israeli government, will benefit many. The exchange of fire has already killed at least 224 people in Iran and 19 in Israel.
It is unfortunate that the previous failed military adventure lessons in the region have been completely ignored.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described this war as “proactive”, and he aims- as he said- to prevent Tehran from developing its own nuclear weapon. With this, the same strategic error in which the two politicians who launched the last “pre -emptive” attack occurred in the region: US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
As Israeli fighters and their missiles fly in the airspace of the Middle East to carry out their deadly strikes against Iranian military sites and military leaders, the world has become at a more dangerous moment. As happened with the American-British invasion of Iraq, this unjustified attack will inevitably lead to more instability in an area that is already suffering from tension.
Netanyahu claimed that the attacks aim to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and the Israeli forces have so far targeted three nuclear facilities: Natanz, Asefhan, and Fordo, causing varying damage. However, these strikes are unlikely to actually stop Iran’s nuclear program, and the Israeli Prime Minister realizes this fact.
Natanz was deliberately designed to be deep in the earth, making it resistant to any bombing except one of the strongest extraordinary bombs of the fortifications. Tel Aviv does not have the ability to destroy it permanently, because it does not have the “massive fortifications” bombs or the “massive air explosion” bombs produced by the United States.
Washington has declined to provide Israel with these weapons, even during the administration of President Donald Trump, who was closely related to Israeli officials and sought to protect them from sanctions due to war crimes in the Gaza Strip. Recently, the Trump administration indicated again that it will not provide Tel Aviv with these weapons.
Of the US official reactions after the attack, it does not seem completely clear to what extent Washington has been aware of the process. The US State Department initially announced that the attack was an Israeli “unilateral” Israeli operation, before Trump declared that he was “fully aware.”
The extent of the involvement of the United States- and its approval- remains a mysterious issue, but immediately ended any hopes that the intense diplomacy between Washington and Tehran in recent weeks will be a new agreement, which is a short-term gain for Netanyahu.
However, any additional act against Iran seems conditional on the traction of the United States to the conflict. This is a dangerous gambling by Tel Aviv, due to the presence of a large number of critics of American interventions between Trump’s top advisers. Indeed, the American president himself sought to make withdrawal from external interference a corner stone in his political heritage.
Israel’s actions are already negatively affecting the other Trump interests, by pushing global oil prices to rise, and complicating his relations with the Gulf states, which will incur a lot if the shipping movement is disrupted through the Strait of Hormuz.
If Israel appears to be a victory, Trump will hurry to his attribution to himself, undoubtedly. If it seems that Netanyahu’s strategy is increasingly dependent on the attempt to drag Washington into a new war in the Middle East, Trump may turn against him.
As is the current situation, unless Israel resorted to violating international rules, and uses a nuclear weapon, achieving any additional strategic gains in Iran will remain dependent on American intervention.
As for the second goal announced by Netanyahu- the overthrow of the Iranian regime- it appears far.
A number of senior Iranian military leaders have been killed in specific attacks, and Tel Aviv called on the Iranian people to uprising against his government. However, this unilateral aggression on the part of Israel is likely to cause widespread discontent with Tel Aviv among the Iranians, more than any curse towards their government, regardless of the nature of the regime and its democracy.
Rather, the Iranian claim that the nuclear bomb is a necessary deterrent in the face of the Israeli aggression, which will now look more logical for those who were questioning this inside Iran. In other regional countries whose relations in Tehran have begun to decline, Netanyahu’s actions are now threatening to revive these alliances.
But even if Israel succeeds in destabilizing Tehran, this will not lead to peace in the region. This is the lesson that should have been extracted from the fall of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The collapse of the Iraqi state later led to a great escalation in extremism, and ended with the emergence of the Islamic State, which terrified large parts of the region during the second decade of the millennium.
Israel does not have the slightest opportunity to arrange a smooth transfer of power to a more flexible system in Tehran. The occupation of Iran to achieve this goal is completely unlikely, especially since the two countries do not share borders. The United States’ support for such an endeavor is difficult to conceive under the Trump administration, because it will undoubtedly increase the risk of targeting the United States with retaliatory attacks.
In other words, Netanyahu’s attacks may achieve short -term tactical gains for Israel, such as delaying Iran’s nuclear ambitions, or disrupting its negotiations with Washington, but it is a long -term strategic catastrophe.
The opinions in the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al -Jazeera.