The Fumbling of the American-Israeli Strategy: From Illusions of Overthrowing the Iranian Regime to the International Navigation Crisis

The path of military escalation led by Israel and the United States against Iran since the end of last February indicates a state of absurdity in managing international relations. War has transformed from a means to achieve political goals into an end in itself, which the two countries seek to sustain through political discourse that justifies the continuation of military operations despite their catastrophic repercussions.

This confrontation began with declared objectives: to overthrow the Iranian regime and strip it of its three elements of power: nuclear capabilities, the ballistic missile program, and the extended regional alliance system. This was clearly demonstrated in the map displayed by Benjamin Netanyahu, which identified five countries as direct military targets for Israeli operations.

Despite the intensity of the destruction caused by what is called the 'Seven Fronts War' in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, the reality on the ground confirms Israel's failure to achieve a strategic breakthrough. The regime in Tehran did not fall, and the Iranian masses did not respond to the calls for revolution repeatedly launched by Netanyahu and Trump, which caused clear disappointment to the Israeli leadership.

The appointment of Meir Ben-Shabbat as head of the 'Mossad' indicates an Israeli desire to continue attempts to stimulate internal change in Iran. However, Ben-Shabbat's previous criticisms of the lack of real preparation for this goal reflect a significant gap between political ambitions and operational capabilities on the ground.

On the other hand, Iran showed resilience in dealing with the strikes, quickly choosing a successor to the Supreme Leader after the assassination attempt targeting him. This move sent a clear message about the continuity and cohesion of the regime, at a time when Iranian air defenses succeeded in altering the balance of power in the theater of operations.

Tehran rediscovered the importance of the Strait of Hormuz as an effective strategic asset in the confrontation, forcing the American administration to change its rhetoric. President Trump shifted from talking about regime change to focusing on 'opening the strait,' which is a tactical retreat imposed by global economic and navigational necessities.

American strategic confusion reveals a division in views between Washington and Tel Aviv, especially after Trump accepted the principle of negotiation and a temporary truce. This decision caused turmoil in Netanyahu's office, who fears that diplomatic paths could undermine his military goals aimed at prolonging the conflict.

Marathon negotiations lasting 21 hours took place in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, between a high-level American delegation and an Iranian one led by Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. These discussions addressed thorny issues including the nuclear program, frozen assets, and navigation security in the Gulf, in an attempt to defuse a full-scale explosion.

The chances of success for these negotiations depend on the flexibility of both parties in making mutual concessions, away from the logic of a 'zero-sum game.' However, the pro-war lobby in Israel and the United States is striving to thwart any diplomatic rapprochement, promoting claims about the futility of dialogue with Tehran.

Should war reignite, its objectives will shift for the third time towards imposing a comprehensive naval blockade on Iranian ports. Trump claims that this measure aims to force Iran back to the negotiating table, a clear reversal of facts given that he was the one who previously withdrew from diplomatic paths.

The proposed naval blockade poses a threat not only to Iran but also to the interests of dozens of countries that rely on maritime transport in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. Major countries like China and India, as well as European powers, have expressed their rejection of this step, which contradicts the freedom of global trade.

China clearly warned that a naval blockade would lead to severe global economic repercussions, while NATO countries refused to participate in it. This stance puts the United States in a potential confrontation with its traditional allies and increases its international isolation on this issue.

It seems that the American administration does not realize the extent of the strategic losses that could result from the continuation of an open confrontation with Iran. Regional allies, who are paying the price for these policies, find themselves without real means of defense against the exorbitant consequences of the ongoing war's folly.

Ultimately, the scene remains open to possibilities of escalation or a return to negotiations under the pressure of international need for navigation stability. But the only constant is that the American-Israeli strategy suffers from deep confusion, as objectives change with every new field setback.

The official shift from war to negotiations represents a dramatic change in the American strategic approach and reveals Washington's lack of confidence in the military option's ability to resolve the navigation issue.