Shift from US–Israel to US–Iran Confrontation
The conflict initially began as an Israel–Iran clash, with Israel drawing the United States into the fray. Once Washington committed itself, Israel stepped back, focusing instead on Lebanon. Prime Minister Netanyahu calculated that Donald Trump would be compelled to enforce an outcome that preserved America’s global standing. With the US now leading the fight, Trump alone must secure a face‑saving settlement.
Pakistan as Mediator – Israel Sidelined
Trump’s choice of Pakistan as mediator effectively excluded Israel, given the deep hostility between Islamabad and Tel Aviv. Pakistan has consistently accused Israel of genocide in Gaza, and its Defence Minister Khawaja Asif even tweeted that Israel was “a curse for humanity” before deleting the post under global pressure. This move mirrored Trump’s earlier attempts to control negotiations in Ukraine, leaving Israel dependent on whatever outcome Trump dictates.
Iran’s Long Preparation for Conflict
Iran had anticipated renewed hostilities with Trump’s return. His first tenure saw the US withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, reimpose sanctions, and authorize the killing of General Qasem Soleimani. In June last year, Trump launched Operation Midnight Hammer against Iran’s nuclear facilities, causing significant damage. Yet Iran had studied past US campaigns and adapted its defenses accordingly.
Limits of US “Shock and Awe” Strategy
The US relies heavily on airpower to dismantle adversary command networks and leadership. This approach succeeded in Iraq and Libya but failed in Korea and Vietnam, where opponents endured losses until US patience waned. In Afghanistan, Washington leveraged the Northern Alliance, while Israel attempted a similar strategy with the Kurds—blocked by Iran. American public opinion, sensitive to casualties and economic costs, further constrains Trump, especially with mid‑term elections looming and the 60‑day limit on military deployments expiring soon.
Iran’s Mosaic Strategy and Resilience
Iran adopted a decentralized “Mosaic” strategy, ensuring continuity of operations despite leadership losses. This prevented infighting and nullified Israeli hopes of regime change. Trump was forced to scale down objectives from overthrowing the regime to merely degrading military power—a far less decisive outcome.
Targeting US Vulnerabilities
Unable to match US military strength, Iran struck at exposed bases and economic choke points. Attacks forced US troops to evacuate to civilian facilities and relocate air assets. The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz intensified global economic pressure, while NATO and Asian allies distanced themselves from Washington. Iran also protected its missile and drone arsenal in deep underground facilities, preserving its strike capability despite weeks of bombardment.
Misjudging Iranian Resolve
The US–Israel alliance underestimated Iranian society’s resilience. As in Vietnam and Korea, the population endured suffering but refused to surrender to Western powers. Years of sanctions and hostile narratives had already entrenched anti‑US sentiment. Israel’s expectation of an internal uprising was unrealistic; regime change was never viable.
Political Objectives Reduced to Face‑Saving
Trump’s initial declaration of regime change collapsed. Forced to announce only the destruction of military targets, Washington achieved little beyond tactical gains. Sanctions and blockades, historically ineffective against nations like Cuba and Venezuela, are unlikely to compel Iran to negotiate. The economic burden of maintaining the blockade weighs more heavily on the US than on Iran.
Negotiations on Iran’s Terms
Ultimately, it is Trump seeking talks, not Tehran. Iran refused to join US‑led negotiations in Pakistan, forcing Washington to cancel its trip. Dialogue will occur only when Iran is ready and its conditions are met—not through Trump’s social media pronouncements.
No comments:
Post a Comment