Warships rush to the region.. Has the strike approached?

Dr. Ammar Qana: From a military technical perspective, there are preparations and data indicating that a strike is almost inevitable, but it is more likely that threats and warnings will continue without implementation.
Dr. Kholoud Al-Obaidi: Several indicators point to the inevitability and proximity of a US strike against Iran, and there are a number of factors that reinforce and support this scenario.
Dr. Sinan Shaqdih: As the American military presence approaches completion, the risk of confrontation increases, but it is not imminent or inevitable, and its development is linked to the Iranian response.
Moain Odeh: A strike is likely, but it will be in Trump's style, who does not want a long or even medium-term war, but rather quick and limited operations.
Dr. Muhammad Mehran: The unprecedented American military movements we are witnessing in the Gulf raise serious questions about Washington's true intentions towards Iran.
Imad Abu Awad: The strike is gradually approaching, and America is concerned with directing it, and the Israeli handling of the Iranian file indicates a high probability of its implementation.

Exclusive to "Al-Quds"-

The United States' deployment of more military force to the Middle East and the Gulf region raises fears that a military strike against Iran has become almost inevitable and is gradually approaching, amid American efforts to exploit the opportunity of internal protests in Iran to change the regime, driven by American fears fueled by Israel regarding Iran's nuclear and missile program.
Writers and analysts for "ye" believe that forecasts indicate the possibility of a strike within a month, but they questioned the repercussions and political goals that the United States could achieve from such a strike, and whether it would be an operation to weaken the political system in Iran and eliminate the Iranian nuclear project, or merely a show of force to demonstrate new American power to impose an international political situation that re-establishes unipolarity, despite the geographical and political isolation Washington faces in the current international scene.

 

Possibility of a strike within a month

Dr. Ammar Qana, Director of the Center for Strategic Studies and Political Forecasting in Moscow, says: If we look from a military technical perspective, there are preparations and data indicating that the strike has become almost inevitable, noting that the timing will not depend on military data alone, but on political data first, from within the Middle Eastern system, and secondly on the partially confused internal American situation, in addition to the international situation on the other hand.
Qana adds that forecasts indicate the possibility of a strike within a month, but he questioned the repercussions and political goals that the United States could achieve from such a strike, and whether it would be an operation to weaken the political system in Iran and eliminate the Iranian nuclear project, or merely a show of force to demonstrate new American power to impose an international political situation that re-establishes unipolarity, despite the geographical and political isolation Washington faces in the current international scene.
Qana indicates that the most likely scenario is the continuation of threats and warnings without implementing the strike, a pattern that President Trump's foreign policy has become accustomed to, which keeps the Middle East in a state of instability.
Regarding the second scenario, Qana believes that the implementation of a military strike is the worst, as its repercussions will be completely different from the previous strike and the twelve-day war, expecting it to lead to a direct response against Israel and an expansion of the military conflict, which will affect international peace and security, especially in the Middle East, in addition to economic repercussions on energy supply chains and oil prices.

Clear goals to overthrow the Iranian regime

Regarding the overthrow of the Iranian regime, Qana confirms that the United States and Israel have clear goals in this direction, but he considered that overthrowing any regime without a direct military presence on the ground is almost impossible, especially since Iran is not a weak or marginal state, but an influential regional player in the Middle East and a state of institutions, which makes assassinations or security operations insufficient to bring about radical change.Qana indicates that economic pressures are being used in an unprecedented way, but he stressed that overthrowing the Iranian regime through a military or security strike is not likely to be that easy.

Trump seeks to provide international legitimacy for his foreign interventions

Dr. Kholoud Al-Obaidi, a specialist in political science and international law, says: There are many indicators that point to the proximity and inevitability of a US strike against Iran, noting that a set of factors support this scenario.
She points to "an internal reason, as we see media portraying the United States in an internal crisis, and that an opposition will soon eliminate Trump. However, anyone who heard President Trump's speech at the recent Davos conference realizes that Trump feels after a year in office that he has achieved great accomplishments. Therefore, he is moving forward with his policies, and does not feel that they will be an obstacle or that there will be internal opposition that will stand in his way."
Al-Obaidi adds: "Trump seeks to provide international legitimacy for his foreign interventions, contrary to what is published about him, and that the arrest of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, for example, used a US court decision to arrest him as a defendant in drug crimes. And about the legitimacy of the justifications for striking Iran, there is no end to it. Iran is a fundamental threat to Trump. Therefore, there will be no legal impediment to a strike on Iran."
She points out that "Trump's policy can be understood through his writings. Trump published books on foreign policy since the end of the last century. In his book 'The America We Deserve' published in 2000, he wrote that Iran is a terrorist threat to the United States because of its capabilities and has called it a rogue state ever since."
She adds: Also, there is a second reason, which is that Trump sees Iran as threatening Israel's security, while Trump considers protecting Israel a duty of the United States. Since then, he has not backed down on the issue of the necessity of eliminating Iran, noting that the idea of hostility towards Iran is part of his foreign policies, and that getting rid of the Iranian regime may weaken Russia and achieve stability in the Arab region, and secure his interests in the Arabian Gulf.
Al-Obaidi confirms that Iran itself has chosen the path of direct and indirect confrontation, and has no intention of abandoning its nuclear program, missile industry, and its relationship with Russia and China. 
She also indicates that Iran still constitutes a state of instability and a threat to security in the region, adding that in Iraq it is still interfering in the selection of the next prime minister, there is tension on the border with Syria pushed by the Popular Mobilization Forces, then Masoud Barzani sends brigades to help the separatist QSD forces in Syria and announces it, in addition to the possibilities of igniting areas in Lebanon and Yemen and the continuation of tension in the region.

Three possible scenarios

Regarding the possible scenarios, Al-Obaidi indicated that there are three expected scenarios:
The first scenario is the continuation of threats without military action, and reliance on internal change carried out by the people. This option from previous attempts and the current attempt is ruled out, as it will take longer than the situation can bear, adding that this scenario is unlikely due to the damage caused by Iranian provocations, as it uses violence against demonstrators, and regionally it is still waiting for an opportunity to restore its old influence, and the region will not feel safe in light of the threats and tensions and the presence of American aircraft carriers.
Al-Obaidi indicates that the second scenario is a sweeping attack by the United States of America similar to the invasion of Iraq. This is difficult and costly, and it is a danger internally for Iran to become a hotbed of instability in an important region. And it threatens the security of the Arabian Gulf. The Gulf Arab states have expressed their unwillingness to allow their airspace to be used to strike Iran. In my opinion, this is a wise and far-sighted policy because Iran is a neighbor, and good neighborliness must be maintained.
She explains that the third scenario is a limited strike by the United States targeting the Supreme Leader and bringing about a change in the regime, as happened in Venezuela, and the destruction of facilities. This scenario is plausible because Iran is infiltrated and does not need an army to overthrow the regime.
Al-Obaidi confirms that "the issue concerns our Arab security, our policy must be non-interference, demanding the preservation of freedom of navigation in the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, and supporting the independence of the Arab state of Ahwaz. Iran is a Persian state, without Ahwaz it will not pose a threat to the region."

The likely scenario: a limited and symbolic strike

Dr. Sinan Shaqdih, a specialist in American affairs, confirms that with the approach of the American aircraft carrier "USS Abraham Lincoln" to the Gulf and other American military reinforcements, the indicator of a possible American military strike on Iran rises.
He points out that the background of these movements came in the context of American efforts to exploit the opportunity of internal protests in Iran to change the regime, driven by American fears fueled by Israel regarding Iran's nuclear and missile program.
Shaqdih adds: In response to the American build-up, there is an escalation in Iran's rhetoric through its warning that any attack will be met with "all-out war," and it even went so far as to threaten American carriers with its missiles.
Shaqdih says: Away from the language of escalation, the facts indicate that a strike is possible, but it is not inevitable and not immediately imminent, and even if there is an American decision to launch this strike, the final preparations for it will take at least a week.
He explains that there are estimates (such as the Eurasia Group's estimate) that put a 65% probability of American or Israeli strikes on Iran before April 2026, especially if nuclear negotiations fail.
Shaqdih believes that within the escalation scenario, and although it was reported that Trump is pressuring his war department to submit proposals for a decisive strike - meaning one that succeeds in changing the regime - the likely scenario, if a strike occurs, is that it will be in the form of limited and symbolic strikes targeting nuclear or missile facilities to weaken Iran without an all-out war, but it may extend for weeks or months with the possibility of an escalation leading to a comprehensive regional war if Iran responds strongly, such as striking American or Israeli bases, or closing the Strait of Hormuz, which could lead to a large-scale war with potential nuclear risks. This includes a strong Iranian response through missile attacks on American assets in the region, which could cause significant losses and affect the prestige of the United States.
Shaqdih adds: As for a full American military intervention, it is the least likely because it involves a ground invasion or extensive support for the opposition, which is a scenario full of risks and significant consequences, and it is clear that the internal American situation does not allow for this, especially in Trump's isolationist electoral base that rejects foreign wars.
Shaqdih concluded that with the approaching completion of the American military presence, the risk of confrontation increases, but the strike is not imminent or inevitable. The decision for war depends on American political calculations. As for the possibility of its development, it is linked to the Iranian response. And here specifically, both the American and Iranian sides realize the great risks of escalation that could lead to a wide regional conflict that could develop rapidly.

Multiple scenarios

As for the American affairs specialist, lawyer Moain Odeh, he indicates that there is more than one scenario proposed for an attack on Iran. The first scenario is the continuation of the maximum pressure policy on Iran.
He confirms that the situation on the ground shows that Iranian forces are on high alert, and that this attrition is very exhausting for Iran, and may push it to a stage where it requests negotiations before any actual attack occurs.
Odeh explains that the threats emanating from Iran are very significant, but they are essentially, in his opinion, threats aimed at negotiation rather than a desire for conflict, citing the common saying: He who intends to act does not threaten.
He believes that the continuation of statements about a devastating, rapid, and comprehensive response reflects a state of fear and extreme confusion within the current Iranian regime, in addition to a desire to try to reach a compromise, and perhaps the existence of back channels between the American administration and Iran, likely between Jared Kushner and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Therefore, the first scenario may be a return to negotiations.
As for the second hypothesis, as Odeh says, it is difficult to believe that all this American military build-up is merely a show. He asks: Why all this size of forces and these huge costs if there is no intention for a real strike?
Odeh suggests that there will be some kind of strike, but in Trump's style, who does not want a long or even medium-term war, but prefers quick and limited operations, as happened in Venezuela when the strike targeted the head of the regime, and the forces quickly returned to their bases.
 He believes that the same scenario may be repeated if Washington decides to launch a strike against Iran, despite the unclear ability of the American and Israeli armies to achieve their goals, especially with American bases within range of Iranian missiles, as well as Israel.
He points out that Iran has proven its great ability to launch missiles, and its ability to withstand a strong first strike, and to launch a second strike, but the matter will depend on the size and strength of the first strike and its accuracy, especially after intensive intelligence activity to identify additional targets inside Iran.
Odeh also confirms that the internal situation in Iran is completely unstable, with talk of tens of thousands killed during the recent protests, in addition to a significant deterioration of the economic situation.

War on Iran could be Trump's last resort

Odeh believes that a war on Iran could be Trump's last resort, and he may wait until the last moment before making a decision, especially with Iran's ability to respond and target wide areas in the region, and some surrounding countries have informed Washington that they do not wish to be part of this confrontation.
Odeh adds: The global situation cannot tolerate an additional war, and the internal American situation is unstable due to the events in Minnesota and the immigration file, which makes the option of a long or medium-term war currently out of the question, but Trump's unpredictable nature leaves all options open.

The danger of American military escalation in the Gulf

For his part, Dr. Muhammad Mehran, Professor of Public International Law and member of the American and European Societies of International Law, warns of the danger of American military escalation in the Arabian Gulf region, which was manifested in the completion of the arrival of American aircraft carriers to the region, considering that this massive military build-up represents a blatant violation of the principles of international law and a direct threat to regional and international peace and security.
Mehran says: The unprecedented American military movements we are witnessing in the Gulf raise serious questions about Washington's true intentions towards Iran, adding: According to the United Nations Charter, specifically Article Two, Paragraph Four, the threat or use of force against the sovereignty or political independence of any state is internationally prohibited, unless it is in self-defense under Article 51 or authorized by the UN Security Council.
The international legal expert explains that the current American military build-up is not based on either of these two legal bases, noting that Iran has not directly attacked the United States or its allies in a way that justifies the application of the right of self-defense, and the UN Security Council has not issued any resolution authorizing military action against Tehran, and therefore, any American military strike against Iran would be a clear aggression under international law.
Dr. Mehran indicates that the potential scenarios for escalation range from limited air strikes targeting Iranian nuclear or military facilities, to large-scale military operations that may include intensive bombing of Iran's infrastructure, explaining that both scenarios carry catastrophic consequences for the entire region.
The professor of international law points out that historical experience confirms that American wars in the region have never been to protect democracy or human rights, as Washington claims, but have always been to achieve strategic and economic interests related to controlling vital resources and passages, noting that what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria proves that the declared goals of American military interventions differ fundamentally from the real goals.
He points out that Iran has a vital strategic location that controls the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of global oil supplies pass, in addition to its enormous oil and gas wealth, considering that these factors make it a constant target for American ambitions, especially under the Trump administration, which adopts a policy of maximum pressure and military threats.
Mehran warns that any military strike against Iran will open the gates of hell in the region, noting that Iran is not Iraq or Afghanistan, it is a state with advanced military capabilities and strong regional allies, and any aggression against it will lead to a wide regional reaction that may include closing the Strait of Hormuz, targeting oil facilities in the Gulf, and a military escalation that could turn into a comprehensive regional war involving several countries.
He stresses that Arab countries are required to take a clear and decisive stance at this critical moment, and cannot remain silent about American threats to Iran under any pretext, because aggression against any country in the region is aggression against the entire region, emphasizing the importance of activating diplomatic mechanisms in the United Nations, the League of Arab States, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to condemn American escalation and demand the resolution of disputes by peaceful means.
Mehran confirms that international law is clear in prohibiting aggressive wars and the use of force in international relations, adding: What the United States is doing in terms of military build-up in the Gulf is a direct threat to international peace, and the international community is required to take immediate action to prevent a new humanitarian catastrophe in a region that has not yet recovered from the scourges of previous wars, noting that the best and only legally and morally acceptable scenario is dialogue and diplomacy, not more blood and destruction.



Imad Abu Awad, a specialist in Israeli affairs, believes that the strike against Iran is gradually approaching, noting that the United States of America is concerned with directing this strike, and that Israeli internal behavior and handling of the Iranian file also indicate an increasing probability of its implementation day by day.
He adds that the question is no longer whether the strike will happen, but when it will happen, wondering about its timing during the next week or the one after, confirming that the strike has become generally expected.
Abu Awad explains that the most likely scenario is that the strike will be aimed at reaching a certain settlement with Iran on a number of issues, including the issue of selling Iranian oil to China and other issues, expecting the strike to be wide but within a specific timeframe, meaning that it will not be long-term, but precise and specific, because the United States realizes that the most Iran needs is a corrective strike to adjust its positions.
Abu Awad indicates that the other scenario, which is going to a wide and open war, will have negative repercussions on American interests in the region and on the United States' relations with many countries, and may lead to chaos within Iran, which is not in the interest of any party, and may lead to the absence of an authority capable of controlling the Iranian reality, which will leave additional negative repercussions.
Abu Awad stresses that the most likely scenario is the implementation of a limited strike within a short timeframe with the aim of softening and adjusting Iranian positions, with the possibility of things escalating, but he believes that the political scene indicates a swift and quick strike, not a long-term war.