The US-Israeli aggression against Iran entered its seventh day amidst unprecedented military escalation that encompassed vast geographical areas extending from the Arabian Gulf to the Indian Ocean. These developments come amid field confirmations of the martyrdom of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Commander Mohammad Pakpour during the initial raids, placing the Iranian regime before its most difficult existential test in decades. In response, Tehran targeted American bases in the region and bombed vital installations with thousands of drones and missiles.
Amidst this complex scene, fundamental questions arise about the ability of military pressure to achieve real political change, especially recalling previous American experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan that ended in strategic failure. Analytical estimates suggest that history will not judge President Donald Trump's decision based on the accuracy of the airstrikes, but rather on the nature of the regime that will succeed the current chaos, and the extent of Washington's ability to contain the repercussions that have begun to shake the foundations of the global economy.
The first proposed scenario is to reach a political settlement in the 'Venezuelan style,' where the current structure of the regime is maintained through back channels but in a weakened and disarmed form. This path aims to reduce Iran's nuclear ambitions and curb the influence of its allies in the region in exchange for guarantees of continued power, an option that some may prefer to avoid a complete collapse that could lead to a permanent disruption of global energy supplies.
The second scenario warns of the Iranian state sliding into widespread internal chaos and a bitter power struggle following the collapse of central institutions. In this case, observers believe that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard will fill the security and political vacuum, transforming the country into a pure military dictatorship that adopts a more radical approach, which could open the door to long-term wars of attrition that extend beyond the Middle East, with their sparks reaching Europe and the Indian Ocean.
The third scenario, an orderly transition of power, remains theoretically the best option and the most difficult to implement on the ground. It requires the formation of an interim authority with international support and the redrafting of the constitution, with the army remaining aloof from political struggles. However, this path faces the obstacle of 'long-term commitment' from the United States, a commitment that successive American administrations lack, making it difficult to bet on building a stable democratic state amidst the rubble of war.
On the ground, the effects of the war have begun to clearly reflect on the international economy, with oil and gas prices jumping by 25% due to direct threats in the Strait of Hormuz, while the Israeli occupation's losses reached approximately 9.4 billion shekels weekly. In contrast, international divisions are growing over the utility of this war, with European countries such as Spain and Portugal refusing the use of their military bases, while Britain preferred the negotiating path, warning against being drawn into Netanyahu's escalatory goals.
On the diplomatic front, Russia, through its officials, warned of severe consequences for global stability due to NATO's involvement in this conflict, describing the attacks as an unjustified war that will lead to economic disasters. With the expansion of the confrontation to include targeting gas tankers and vital installations, the question remains as to how far this war can go, and whether the region will emerge with a new regional order or sink into decades of turmoil and destruction.
The most dangerous question today is not whether the military strikes will succeed in achieving their immediate objectives, but rather how this conflict will end and what will happen the day after the shells fall?
شارك برأيك
Three Scenarios for Iran's Future: Will the US-Israeli Military Gamble Succeed?