CrossFireArabia
By Ismail Al-Sharif
Despite the strength of the attack, Iran remains a large country; therefore, it will take four weeks, or less – Trump.
The attack on Iran was not surprising; the massive American military buildup was sufficient to signal an imminent military operation. However, what was unexpected was the breadth of the strikes and the targeting of the head of the Iranian government himself.
US President Trump explicitly called for the overthrow of the regime and urged the Iranian people to govern themselves, while the Zionist leadership declared that the military strikes and the assassination of leaders had created a climate conducive to political change within Iran. However, the lessons of history confirm that wars waged under the banner of regime change are rarely short-lived and often descend into protracted conflicts that do not end anytime soon.
Iran responded by targeting US military bases in the Gulf states and closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of the world’s oil passes, as well as targeting oil tankers. This led to a sharp rise in oil prices, a development that poses a direct threat to the global economy and supply chains.
The Iranian military doctrine is based on the principle of asymmetric warfare. Instead of engaging in a conventional confrontation with US power, it employs strategies that confound its adversary, obscure its vision, make the course of the confrontation unpredictable, disrupt supply lines, and increase the cost of war for it.
One of the most dangerous escalation scenarios would be if Iran succeeded in targeting a US aircraft carrier. These carriers represent a stark embodiment of American hegemony and military might. Iran has developed anti-ship ballistic missiles specifically designed to target naval vessels, in addition to possessing swarms of drones and submarines that could be employed in such an attack. Any damage to an aircraft carrier, let alone its sinking, would constitute an unprecedented historical event, potentially opening the door to a dangerous escalation of the war.
Russia and China view the United States’ involvement in a protracted war as a strategic gain, but their direct entry into the fighting remains unlikely unless their vital interests are directly threatened.
This raises a fundamental and troubling question: Are we on the brink of a third world war? By its very nature, a world war requires the involvement of several major powers, which has not yet occurred. However, the entry of Iranian-backed factions such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and affiliated militias in Iraq and Syria could open multiple fronts simultaneously. If the conflict drags on and Gulf states become involved, and Russian and Chinese support for Iran increases, tensions between the major powers could escalate. Escalation often begins gradually. One step leads to another, one response to another, until retreat becomes increasingly difficult. This scenario persists as the conflict expands.
The United States may find itself mired in a protracted war. Iran is not Afghanistan or Iraq. It is a vast country with a population exceeding 90 million, and its society is characterized by a deep-rooted nationalism and a profound hostility toward the Zionist entity and the United States, coupled with accumulated experience in confronting external pressures and aggressions. In such a context, war often serves to solidify Iranian nationalism and unify the home front against the external enemy. It should also be noted that the collapse of a state does not necessarily lead to peace; rather, it may lead to a vacuum that breeds chaos. Targeting the nuclear program does not mean the end of nuclear ambitions; on the contrary, it may push Iran to pursue nuclear weapons at an even faster pace.
Wars often begin with pronouncements brimming with confidence and optimism, but their threads soon become entangled and increasingly complex. In its initial stages, leaders believe they can resolve it quickly, but its outbreak opens a path to the unknown; no one knows when it will end. History teaches us that wars may begin with limited objectives, but they quickly expand and escalate due to miscalculations or escalating tit-for-tat responses. Thus, the United States may find itself embroiled in a protracted war with Iran, similar to its experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, but undoubtedly far more complex and dangerous. Many analysts warn that this conflict could turn into a grave geopolitical blunder, undermining regional stability, draining resources, disrupting the global economy, and weakening American influence on the international stage.
Ismail Al Sharif is a columnist in Addustour newspaper. This column first appeared in Arabic and translated and posted on the crossfirearabia.com website.
