The War on Iran... The Middle East on the Threshold of a Pivotal Stage

Dr. Hussein Al-Deek: The ongoing confrontation represents an existential struggle related to the survival of the Iranian regime itself and may last longer than expected by Israel and America. Akram Atallah: It is unlikely that diplomacy will defuse the war because it has been largely exhausted during the past period without achieving tangible results. Dr. Raed Abu Badawiya: The possibility of concluding a "deal under fire" using military strikes as a means of pressure to impose a new agreement with stricter conditions than the 2015 agreement. Dr. Suhail Diab: The assassination may lead to the selection of a new leadership more hardline than Khamenei and adopting a less pragmatic approach regarding nuclear negotiations, which may increase the intensity of the confrontation. Adnan Al-Sabah: US attempts to activate internal movements against the Iranian regime failed after any movement was branded as treason and serving America and Israel. Abdul Majeed Suwailem: The current conflict is a historic opportunity for Washington and Tel Aviv to strengthen their influence, and the results of the war will be pivotal in redrawing the map of the Middle East. Ramallah - Exclusive to "Al-Quds" - The region is entering a very sensitive stage with the escalation of military confrontation against Iran and the reciprocal response, amid estimations that the current conflict goes beyond being a limited confrontation to take on an existential character that may reshape the balances of the Middle East. Writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors, in separate interviews with "Al-Quds", believe that the war is likely to continue for longer than expected, in light of the assassination of prominent leaders, most notably the Supreme Leader of the Iranian Revolution Ali Khamenei, and the targeting of strategic facilities and sensitive military infrastructure inside Iran, while Tehran seeks to maintain the cohesion of its political system and its ability to respond. Estimates vary regarding the outcomes of the confrontation, between the possibilities of reaching a settlement imposed by military pressures, or sliding into a long war of attrition that may extend to multiple regional arenas. Scenarios also emerge ranging from Iran's retreat and acceptance of new conditions that change its political and regional behavior, or continued escalation that may lead to widespread losses and deep security and economic repercussions that may affect the entire region. According to writers, political analysts, specialists, and university professors, in light of the continued military confrontation, the chances of diplomatic solutions appear limited in the short term, with the widening trust gap between the parties and conflicting strategic objectives. They agree that the results of the confrontation are still undecided, and that the current stage represents a real test of the ability of the warring parties to withstand, at a time when developments on the ground may determine the shape of the regional order and the future of the balance of power in the Middle East for many years to come. A decisive moment that may reshape the region. Dr. Hussein Al-Deek, Professor of Political Science and International Relations and specialist in American affairs, believes that the region, after the war with Iran, is going through a decisive moment that may reshape the Middle East and leave deep impacts on Iran and the structure of its political system, pointing out that the outcomes of the current confrontation depend on the ability of the Iranian people to bear the consequences of the war, against the ability of Israel and the United States to continue targeting sensitive strategic sites inside Iran. Al-Deek explains that the ongoing confrontation cannot be described as a short or limited war, but rather represents an existential struggle related to the survival of the Iranian regime itself, expecting it to last longer than expected by Israel and America. Al-Deek points out that US President Donald Trump, despite previously criticizing policies of regime change by force, presents the current conflict as the culmination of decades of hostility between Washington and Tehran, going beyond mere political pressure to an attempt to dismantle the Iranian regime itself. The collapse of the new regime is not ruled out. However, Al-Deek does not rule out the collapse of the Iranian regime, but he stresses that countries after the fall of regimes usually go through a turbulent transitional phase that may witness chaos, divisions, and negative repercussions for Iran and the region. He indicates that relying on air power alone will not be enough to overthrow the Iranian regime, because air strikes do not overthrow the political system and do not alone lead to radical change, explaining that overthrowing the regime requires the presence of forces on the ground, weakness in the regime's structure, and a collapse in popular support, which has not yet been achieved, as the Iranian regime still enjoys a considerable part of popular support. Al-Deek explains that the United States' goals include ending Iran's nuclear program, destroying its missile and drone capabilities, reducing Iran's regional influence, and supporting protesters, but Washington avoids announcing clear war goals, which creates a state of ambiguity and prevents measuring its success or failure. Two scenarios for the Iranian regime. Al-Deek presents two main scenarios for the confrontation; the first is the retreat of the Iranian regime and its acceptance of American conditions, which means changing its political and regional behavior and abandoning the approach of "exporting the revolution", with the regime remaining in a new form more amenable to the United States, Israel, and neighboring countries. The second scenario, according to Al-Deek, is the continuation of confrontation and escalation, which may lead to a long war of attrition in light of the significant military superiority of Washington and Tel Aviv, which may lead to widespread losses inside Iran and economic, security, and institutional deterioration, and perhaps its transformation into a fragile or failed state and the emergence of militias within it, similar to previous experiences in the region. The war is likely to expand. Al-Deek confirms that the war is likely to expand through the parties of the Iranian camp and its allies in the region, the indicators of which have begun to appear in Iraq, pointing out that the results of the confrontation are still undecided and the scene is still confused in light of the short time that has passed since the outbreak of military operations. Al-Deek believes that diplomatic solutions are still far off at present, with the absence of effective mediations, expecting Iran to try to raise the economic and security cost of the war for the United States and its allies to push international powers such as Europe or China to intervene, and perhaps create internal pressure within the United States towards a political settlement. Al-Deek believes that initial developments indicate that Washington and Tel Aviv have achieved strategic goals by targeting prominent Iranian military and political leaders, led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and weakening Iranian deterrence elements, without that meaning the overthrow of the regime in the short term. Israel and the quest to remove the Iranian regime. Writer and political analyst Akram Atallah explains that the ongoing military developments in the war on Iran and the subsequent escalation indicate that the region is heading towards a complex and long-term war, pointing out that the nature of the current confrontation does not allow it to be described as an easy or quickly decisive war, in light of the conflicting goals between the parties to the conflict and the absence of clear indications of the possibility of containing it in the short term. Atallah believes that all proposed scenarios involve great difficulties, expecting the confrontation to extend for a long period, given the nature of the existing equation between Israel and Iran, which he described as a "zero-sum equation" based on an existential conflict between two parties with great capabilities. Atallah explains that Israel seeks to remove the Iranian regime and puts all its capabilities to achieve this goal, while the Iranian regime, in turn, works to harness all its capabilities to preserve its survival and prevent its fall, which makes the conflict open to high levels of escalation without a clear space for retreat. Exhaustion of the diplomatic path. Regarding the possibility of diplomatic efforts succeeding in containing the escalation, Atallah rules out that diplomacy can defuse the war, considering that the diplomatic path has been largely exhausted during the past period without achieving tangible results. According to Atallah, diplomacy was used at some stages as a means of political maneuvering, pointing out that the United States played this role during the previous period, which contributed to deepening the lack of trust between the parties. Atallah believes that what is currently happening does not represent the climax of the confrontation but its actual beginning, expecting the parties to move towards the highest levels of escalation, without indications of their willingness to leave lines of retreat or seek quick settlements, which makes it likely that the region will enter a stage of open conflict that may extend in time and become more complex. Attempting to re-engineer the rules of engagement. Dr. Raed Abu Badawiya, Professor of International Law and International Relations at the Arab American University, believes that the recent military developments in the region and the war on Iran constitute a double test; of the ability of military force to impose political conditions, against the ability of diplomacy to contain the escalation and prevent its transformation into an open regional war, in light of the escalating mutual strikes and the widening circle of tension. Abu Badawiya explains that the recent strikes indicate a shift in the conflict from the stage of traditional mutual deterrence to an attempt to re-engineer the rules of engagement, but the potential outcomes do not necessarily lead to a comprehensive war, but rather are distributed among three main scenarios. Controlled escalation. The first scenario, according to Abu Badawiya, is a "controlled escalation" based on calculated exchanges of strikes without sliding into a wide confrontation, while keeping negotiation channels open, which is the most likely possibility in the short term given the high cost of a comprehensive war for all parties in light of the fragility of the region's conditions. Regional proxy war. Abu Badawiya indicates that the second scenario is a "regional proxy war", by expanding the scope of the confrontation in arenas such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the Red Sea, leading to long-term attrition without reaching a wide direct confrontation, a pattern consistent with the complex nature of the conflict between Iran and its regional and international adversaries. A deal under fire. Abu Badawiya addresses a third possibility, which is a "deal under fire", whereby military strikes are used as a means of pressure to impose a new agreement with stricter conditions than the 2015 agreement, especially after the US withdrawal from it. Abu Badawiya believes that talk of regime change in Iran, which is raised in some Israeli circles, remains closer to political ambition than to realistic probability, as historical experiences show that air strikes alone rarely lead to the overthrow of regimes that possess cohesive security apparatuses, and any wide ground intervention would be costly and unlikely for the US. Diplomacy exists but moves slowly. Regarding diplomacy, Abu Badawiya believes that it still exists but is moving slowly behind the military escalation, expecting Tehran to show tactical flexibility in the nuclear file, such as accepting to freeze certain enrichment levels in exchange for lifting sanctions and providing security guarantees, but it will not abandon the right to enrichment or its basic nuclear infrastructure without clear strategic compensation. Abu Badawiya indicates that making fundamental concessions in the ballistic missile file seems unlikely, given that they represent a fundamental pillar in the Iranian deterrence system, and Iran may accept a tactical calm in some regional arenas without a complete withdrawal from its regional influence, at a time when Washington and Tel Aviv seek a tougher agreement that includes the nuclear program, missiles, and regional influence, which keeps the negotiating gap wide and makes military strikes a tool of pressure more than a prelude to a final settlement. Abu Badawiya indicates that the region stands before two main possibilities, either reaching a forced settlement born out of military escalation, or entering a long, low-intensity conflict that redraws the maps of influence and alliances in the Middle East. Far-reaching effects on the future of Iran and the region. Dr. Suhail Diab, Professor of Political Science and specialist in Israeli affairs, believes that the American-Israeli war on Iran, especially the assassination of the Supreme Leader of the Iranian Revolution Ali Khamenei, has produced a series of strategic changes that constitute a crucial turning point in the regional conflict, stressing that the recent developments will have far-reaching effects on the future of Iran and the entire region. Diab explains that the first direct effect of the assassination is the erosion of trust between the American and Iranian parties, which makes a quick return to the negotiating table unlikely, postpones any possibility of a political settlement in the near future, and rearranges the balance of power according to new data. The second effect, according to Diab, is the extension of the state of war beyond Israeli and American expectations about the speed of resolution, as Iran is forced to pay the political and military price, which will prolong the confrontation and increase the cost of the war for the aggressor parties. Diab points to another important effect, which is the incitement of Iranian public opinion against the regime after the assassination of the Leader, which has gradually begun to appear, and represents an internal pressure factor on the current leadership, which may reshape Iranian internal politics. Towards less Iranian pragmatism. Diab points out that this development, with the assassination of Iranian leaders, may lead to the selection of a new Iranian leadership more hardline than Khamenei, as it is likely to adopt a less pragmatic approach regarding nuclear negotiations, which may increase the intensity of the confrontation with Israel and the United States. Diab believes that the current confrontation is a pivotal war on which the future of the Middle East and perhaps beyond the region depends, pointing to two main scenarios: First, the success of Israel and Washington with excessive brutality leading to the overthrow of the Iranian regime, and paving the way for the implementation of Israeli and American hegemony programs, including Greater Israel. The second scenario, according to Diab, is the steadfastness of the Iranian regime and its paying heavy prices, which forces the United States and Israel to retreat and request a ceasefire, and establishes a new balance of power that recognizes the legitimacy of the Iranian axis, and paves the way for regional and strategic pluralism that parallels the growing international pluralism after crises such as Ukraine and Taiwan. Diab points out that the opportunities for Israel and America to bring about radical change in the Iranian regime may be the last opportunity for decades to come, stressing that the final results will depend on the steadfastness of the Iranian people, leadership, and Iranian military forces, considering that the upcoming scenarios are open and decisive for the entire Middle East, and that the current stage represents a test of regional and international balances of power alike. The most accurate probability of a limited war. Writer and political analyst Adnan Al-Sabah explains that the anticipated scenarios for the American-Israeli war on Iran depend primarily on the strategy and plans set by Washington and Tel Aviv, expecting that the most accurate probability is that the war will remain limited in duration and objective, given the limitations of the United States and its previous strategy in international conflicts. Al-Sabah indicates that the United States has no interest or ability to engage in a long-term war on Iranian soil, as any deep involvement could turn into a disaster for the United States similar to what happened in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Al-Sabah explains that the options for Washington are limited to a limited strike, which may last from four days to a week at most, through which it achieves specific strategic goals, before announcing a cessation of operations. Finding a third party and replacing the American role. Al-Sabah points out that the second possible scenario is to find a third party capable of replacing the American role on Iranian soil to become the one who carries out the war for America, and in this case, the war may extend to become open and limitless, given the size of Iran and its capabilities and revolutionary doctrine, in addition to the spontaneous popular masses that appeared after the assassination of the Supreme Leader of the Iranian Revolution Ali Khamenei, which included millions of Iranians in the streets of Iran and abroad in Pakistan, Yemen, and Lebanon, which reflects the magnitude of the challenge facing any external force trying to impose control. Failure of internal movement against the Iranian regime. Al-Sabah indicates that US attempts to activate internal movements against the Iranian regime have failed, after any internal movement was branded as treason and serving American and Israeli interests, which frustrated this possibility, leaving the only option as external intervention as a potential alternative to achieving goals on the ground. Regarding the role of diplomacy, Al-Sabah believes that stopping the war or defusing it depends on only two hands: the United States, which can stop immediately, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, which can accept a cessation of operations without expanding the scope of the confrontation. Al-Sabah indicates that external mediations and international diplomacy, in light of the major American-Israeli attack, will not have an effective role before the cessation of operations, given the magnitude of the strikes and the depth of the military and political strategy adopted by both parties. The current battle has open outcomes. Al-Sabah confirms that the current battle has open outcomes, and that its duration and nature will depend on the ability of the United States to control operations on the one hand, and the steadfastness of Iran, its people, and the Iranian leadership on the other. Al-Sabah believes that any miscalculation could expand the scope of the conflict and prolong it unexpectedly, with possibilities of wide regional impacts extending to neighboring countries and the region as a whole. The upcoming battle may witness greater escalation. Writer and political analyst Dr. Abdul Majeed Suwailem explains that the ongoing war against Iran represents a complex conflict that is difficult to read, pointing out that the Iranian reaction so far shows greater strength and importance than is rumored, compared to previous wars such as the 12-day war last year, where the qualitative Iranian strikes were delayed until only the seventh day, which reflects that the upcoming battle may witness greater escalation according to the plans of the Iranian leadership, especially after the assassination of the top leaders, including the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ali Khamenei, who played a pivotal role in guiding the strategy. Suwailem indicates that there is a "dangerous variable" related to how Iran will respond to the strikes, and whether it will resort to partial de-escalation or comprehensive escalation, noting that the Iranian leadership is currently studying the possibilities of responding to the maximum extent, while the American and Israeli plan will not stop at any limits, which puts great pressure on Iranian leaders such as Ali Larijani to escalate and resort to qualitative strikes, while the final answer about Iran's direction in the next stage remains open and undecided. Failure of diplomacy to defuse the war. Regarding the role of diplomacy, Suwailem stresses that it will not be able to defuse the war, considering that the American and Israeli plan aims to eradicate or radically change the regime, and therefore any possibility of Iranian retreat or negotiated solutions is considered unlikely, because Washington and Tel Aviv consider this stage an unprecedented historical opportunity to strengthen their strategic positions in the Middle East. Suwailem indicates that the nature of the Israeli and American leadership, as well as the internal situations of both Trump and Netanyahu, make military success a necessary goal to prove capability, which reduces the chances of diplomacy even before the field features of the war stabilize. The battle on the ground is still open. Suwailem indicates that the battle on the ground is still open, and that the Iranian regime, despite the great moral shock, its confrontation features have not yet been decided, with possibilities of negative or positive surprises on the ground, which makes talking about diplomatic solutions at this stage extremely difficult. Suwailem explains that the Iranian regime's continued confrontation and steadfastness can lead to a conflict that lasts for months, while the collapse or fracture of its political structure will allow the United States and Israel to achieve a "stunning and historic victory", paving the way for reshaping the Middle East according to the American and Israeli concept, which is a long-term strategic goal. Suwailem believes that the current conflict represents a historic opportunity for both Washington and Tel Aviv to strengthen their influence in the region, and that the results of the war will be pivotal in redrawing the map of regional powers and rearranging the political and military balances in the Middle East.