Iran vs. Israel: takeaways from strange war

A large-scale regional fire was averted, but key problems were not only not resolved, but may have been exacerbated.

For Ukraine, this situation brings both short-term benefits and important strategic lessons for the future.

Parties' goals and the diplomacy failure

To understand the logic of the conflict, it is worth recalling the global goals of the key players in the region.

1. Iran. The ayatollahs' regime seeks to export the Islamic revolution, viewing Israel as a foreign body in the Middle East and fighting for regional dominance with Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

2. Israel. Its main task is the systematic weakening of the Iranian regime, its proxies, and its long-term ability to inflict damage.

3. The United States (Trump administration). The main goal was not so much in Middle East affairs as in the global confrontation with China. Washington viewed Iran as an important element of Chinese influence and sought to either remove the regime or force it to sign a new nuclear deal.

The Trump administration's attempts to reach a new deal have failed. The involvement of Russia as a mediator and the ultimatum tone did not work, as Iran had no reason to make concessions. This paved the way for a military scenario.

Course of conflict

Israel launched a powerful first strike, demonstrating the ineffectiveness of Russian air defense systems in Iran and complete air superiority. The Iranian air force, deprived of support from Russian or Chinese radar reconnaissance aircraft, was virtually blind.

However, Israel has limited resources to wage a protracted war and could not launch a decisive strike on its own, relying on full U.S. support. This support turned out to be an illusion. Instead of a large-scale operation that would have drained the regime or its nuclear program of blood, America limited itself to a few strikes on nuclear facilities, quickly declared victory, and began calling for de-escalation. When Israel tried to continue the operation, Trump - using the nominal nature of Iran's response - blocked the initiative. Perhaps not without Chinese influence.

For Ukraine, the conflict resulted in several positive aspects:

1. There was no oil shock. The Strait of Hormuz is not blocked, and oil prices have stabilized. This creates conditions for revising the price ceiling for Russian oil and imposing new sanctions.

2. U.S. attention returns to Europe. As long as the Middle East front is frozen, the US administration will have fewer reasons to take its eyes off the Russian-Ukrainian war.

3. Iran is weakened. The damage caused will force Tehran to focus on recovery, which could weaken its ties with Russia.

However, the situation has become even more dangerous for the region and the world:

1. Iran's nuclear program has not been destroyed. American intelligence recognizes that no decisive damage has been done. Now, after the direct confrontation, Iran's motivation to obtain nuclear weapons has only increased. They can either accelerate their own development or try to buy the technology, for example, from North Korea.

2. Radicals in Iran have strengthened their positions. They have received proof that attempts to negotiate with the West are pointless, and that the only way is through force.

3. The Ayatollah regime has survived. Having survived the direct confrontation, it gained additional legitimacy in the eyes of other radical movements around the world.

The main lesson of this story is the danger of incomplete decisions and inconsistent strategy.

Putin's regime, although much less ideologically stable than Iran's, is much more aggressive. We have no right to let him out of this war on compromise terms that will allow him to regain the strength to remain a threat to Europe.

The example of Iran has once again shown that the Trump administration is incapable of a consistent policy. Therefore, the responsibility for maintaining pressure and consistency in deterring Russia will lie on the shoulders of Ukraine and Europe.

Source

About the author. Yuriy Bohdanov, publicist, specialist in strategic communications in business, public administration and politics.

The editors do not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.