Victory standards and defeat in the Israel and Iran war policy

Israel’s war on Iran is still far from the finish line, and it may not reach its climax yet, while the parties involved in it, indirectly or indirectly, have set for itself goals with high ceilings, which are of danger and importance in a place, with which it is correct to say that it may draw the image of the region, with the balance of power and dynamics, and perhaps its maps, for years and upcoming decades.

From an Israeli perspective, the thunderbolt opening blow to this war, and the pre -preparations that were revealed by it, the military, political, logistical and intelligence preparations, dating back to a contract or two decades of years, that Tel Aviv is planning beyond the mere “chronic disability” of the Tehran nuclear program, and in what exceeds the dismantling of this program in the Libyan way, to strip the Islamic Republic’s regime from its attitudes And his ballistic claws and “vocal excess”, to open the door for the transition from the strategy of “changing policies” to the “system change” strategy.

Israel no longer hides the goals of its war on Iran, and we no longer need intelligence reports or strategic analysts to get to know them, they say it publicly and the heads of martyrs, and it is wise to take the matter seriously, and not to sleep on the silk of disappointing estimates and bets.

Israel returns to “cut and copy”, some of its experiences of wars on Arabs and Palestinians in its ongoing war on Iran: “strategic deception”, “surprise and thunderbolt” as in June 1967, “beheading/ heads” with the start of the war as in Lebanon, “strategic security breach”.

It intensifies for this, using the vocabulary of “permissibility” and “suburb strategy”, and even began early talking about “the next day” in Iran, and making a series of communications with the remnants of the ousted Shahishhahi, and armed opposition factions at home and abroad, from separatists, “Mujahideen” and others, and in my opinion that “Mossad”, would not have recorded all these field breaches, by relying on his own powers Only, but by resorting to these forces, with an extension and the broadest ability to move inside the Iranian.

This does not mean, of course, that everything that Israel wishes will realize it. The issue before and after, a mortgage of the availability of a number of conditions, which may deepen the gap between the “field accounts and the valuable accounts”:

• The first and most important; Iran’s ability to withstand and recover the initiative and the extent of its success in rebuilding the balance of “deterrence and balance” in its relationship with Israel.
• Second; The United States is specifically ready to expand its circle of involvement in this war, and from the gateway to target the Israeli war machine that the Israeli war is unable to target, and to inflict the maximum damage to the fortified sites that the Iranian nuclear project leads.

So far, it seems that both conditions are not available to the most extreme Israeli right government, so Tehran has not raised a white banner, but in contrast to that, she was silent and stood up, and began to restore “balance and deterrence”. Nor Washington “Tel Aviv” on the roofs of its goals and its very high expectations, and is satisfied with what it is, although it will not mind catching up with Tel Aviv but rather its anticipation to work to achieve these goals, if it is confirmed to her for one moment, that there is an opportunity to achieve them, achieve them quickly, and with a reasonable amount of military and economic costs.

From an American perspective, Washington has already agreed that Tehran kept a low fertilization circle (3.6 percent) for uranium on its soil, sufficient for peaceful and civil uses, under a hail of verification, inspection and control. This was the contents of the Vienna Agreement in 2015, before the Trump administration turned on the agreement and withdrawn from it, and before Trump returned, in his second term, talking about “zero fertilization” on Iranian soil.

The United States shares Israel “its concern” from Iran’s missile program, and in accordance with its “destabilizing role in the region”, the sentence that has become “necessary” in the US foreign policy discourse, and several European countries alike.

Washington, whose president came with the promises of peace everywhere, and on various fronts and crises, driven by the “Nobel Dream” and the highest peace prize, does not prefer “involvement” with a major war in the Middle East, and the “same weight” does not evaluate the fears of Tel Aviv and its concerns, but the performance of its president who deals with lightness and simplification with the most complex, most sensitive and intertwined crises with the present, history and culture And the jiopolitx, so it does not stop the launch of the barrage of the promise and the threat, and the arbitrary imposition of the timeless time, led to the failure to manage most of these files, from Gaza to Ukraine, today Iran and Israel and the replacement of failure, by claiming success in preventing wars or stopping them on other fronts: Pakistan, India, and finally Egypt and Ethiopia (?!).

And if the Trump administration has demonstrated while dealing with some of our region’s crises, a degree of “away” from the priorities of Israeli policy and Netanyahu’s accounts, as in the approach of the Syrian file and openness to the new regime, and as in the incision of direct communication channels with Hamas against the Israeli desire, and the conclusion of an agreement with the Ansar Allah group in Yemen, and the exit from the “absurd war” that it waged on this country that is exhausted and the wars of others Therefore, this administration returns and confirms its adherence to the Israeli agenda in more important articulated issues, especially in the files of Iran and Gaza, even if it has its various “preferences” over Netanyahu’s priorities, but it is always due to controlling its steps on the Israeli rhythm.

Was Washington to enter the Israeli war on Iran from the gate of strategic bombers and the most deadly and destructive bombs in the world?

A question that does not succeed in the imagination and minds of politicians and observers in the region and the world, and in my opinion that it is bad appreciation and lack of wisdom, the dropping of this “scenario”, that we see that it will advance in one of two cases or both: the first; If Iran and its allies rejected the Israeli aggression from the red lines, such as being targeted by American bases, origins and interests in the region, then the intervention will become widespread, as a matter of “collecting the result”, and it will be supported by the largest American leadership and institutional spectrum segments, and will have European support that seems to be guaranteed in advance, especially from the three “Troika” countries: London, Paris, Paris.

The second; If Washington feels that Tel Aviv is at a real danger, it exceeds the balance of the daily losses that we monitor and follow up until now, and if it expresses it, this war will end with a defeat for Israel, dispel the gains of the past twenty months, and re -consideration of the Tehran axis, which was wounded in more than the killing of Israeli multi -front wars and paths that followed the seventh of October 2023 .. Then, the American intervention will be broad, is the practical embodiment of Trump pledges and its administration, and even the various successive American administrations, by adhering to Israeli security, defending it and preserving its superiority.

This dictates Tehran and its allies, looking at politics and field accounts, from this complex perspective, and avoiding miscalculation, and in my mind that he left the smoke of fiery statements by some Iranian leaders and officials, there is a “cold Iranian mind”, there is no doubt that you are now busy, in conducting such accounts and exercises.

From an Iranian perspective; There is a maximum priority for the restoration of “ruin” that Israel has attached to the leadership, control and control system, as Tel Aviv succeeded in “cutting the head” of the security and military bodies, and the lives of a group of Tehran scholars and its engineers were kidnapped, followed by the priority of restoring prestige and building “balance and deterrence” in the face of a project aimed at converting Tehran into a new southern suburb, and Isfahan into “Khan Yunus”.

There is no sound in Iran, the voice of revenge and revenge, whose red flags were raised over the minarets of mosques and Husayniyah. There is no direct or indirect negotiations with Israel under the title “Stopping of Fire”, and there is no urgency in resuming negotiations with the Israeli partner in this war, the Trump administration.

The most important of all this and that, does not give up the minimum that it accepted in the five negotiating rounds before the start of the Israeli war: fertilization at 3.6 percent rates on Iranian soil and recognition of the legitimate nuclear rights of Tehran in civil-peaceful use of nuclear energy, and there is no research in its missile project or its regional role.

Any abdication of these titles/ rights, meaning that Israel has triumphed in imposing its dictates on it, and it will also mean that Trump, who sought to use the “Israeli hide” to overcome the obstacle of the Iranian rejection of its dictates, has scored a landslide victory over it.

Iran can go far in providing guarantees and reassurances about the peaceful and civilization of its nuclear program, and that any upcoming agreement will include the conditions and rules of transparency, verification, inspection and oversight, in exchange for lifting sanctions, or the largest part of them, and otherwise, Israel has succeeded in empowering Trump, to declare the victory of the “diplomacy of power” that replaced it from “diplomacy power”.

The war is still in its beginnings, and it is risking to go to estimates about its conclusions, that we can now define the elements of victory and defeat in it: Trump triumphs if Iran is forced to dismantle its nuclear program and maintain unnecessary structures in itself, but with supply chains from the outside, often controlled.

Netanyahu triumphs if Tehran is stripped of its nuclear claws and its ballistic fangs, and its victory becomes “absolutely” if the project “change the system” on the enforcement rail, by launching internal dynamics that can accomplish the mission, even after a while.

And Iran is winning, if it regains the balance of “balance and deterrence”, and if it is more difficult than before, and if it preserves the minimum nuclear rights as it defined it, it is in itself, in hundreds of speeches, situations and correspondence. The war continues and the conversation is connected.