Limited Iran Strike: Concept and International Dimensions
By Dr. Samira Bitam
In the race for global dominance, America, as always, is committed to playing the political game as the world’s policeman. It believes it has the right to manage its diplomatic and economic affairs in a way that secures its leading position, regardless of whether the targeted country has a legitimate defense or the pretext used to launch its strikes. The objective is paramount, and the target, often due to its nuclear advancements, is seen as an obstacle to America’s complete dominance.
The crucial question remains: What are the future implications of a new world order that will differ from its predecessor in both the number of poles and the size of the participating countries in alliances? Everyone is vigilant and eager to secure a piece of the global pie, aiming to maintain international standing, security, and open, free competition, all in pursuit of economic strength and astute policy.
In reality, Iran has never been an enemy of America, but the USA considers it its strongest competitor due to its possession of nuclear weapons—the same weapons possessed by Pakistan, Russia, North Korea, and others. Iran is currently under American scrutiny, and there has been, and continues to be, talk of a limited strike. In the language of politics, every word has a hidden meaning that cannot be understood superficially. “Limited” could refer to a small strike, perhaps targeting a sensitive location, or it could be a verbal threat indicating America’s seriousness about launching an attack on Iran at any moment. Caution is necessary because such attacks have international repercussions and provoke international reactions. We don’t believe America will repeat the same strike against Iran as it did against Iraq if it hasn’t carefully considered its options.
Iran possesses a silent political language that conceals the reality of its possession of weapons of mass destruction. What some newspapers publish may only represent a fraction of what remains undisclosed. For example, the “Whale” torpedo, specifically designed to destroy American warships, represents perhaps the most crucial element of a comprehensive defense system. According to Israeli estimates, the “Whale” torpedo weighs approximately 500 kilograms and operates underwater at extremely high speeds. To alleviate the burden on American aircraft carriers, Israel assesses that a single torpedo cannot destroy an aircraft carrier unless Iran employs precision operations. Israel’s concerns were evident in Netanyahu’s statement that Israel is facing difficult circumstances. This is understandable, given its gamble on redrawing the map of the Middle East, a gamble that risks failure. The international community will not remain passive, and repeated American aggression against peaceful nations will not go unpunished as before. Governments have reached a level of awareness sufficient to rise up in defense of their borders and territories. Iran will not be the only one affected, as the objective is an existential conflict that will allow Trump to secure his place in history.
The state of the Arabs today is no less lamentable than it was yesterday, when Iraq found itself mired in a sectarian war fueled by external forces, aimed at destroying its prestige and preventing any progress. America achieved its goals and plans, even though Bush, then president, implicitly admitted his mistake towards the Iraqis. The target was not a nuclear weapon, but a regime that had become a threat, leading to increased pressure on Middle Eastern countries. This occurred amidst a deliberate and even explicit fragmentation of the region, normalization of relations with certain countries, and their sponsorship of attacks like those of September 11, 2001, which targeted the World Trade Center in the United States.
America’s expenditure of dollars on the newly named Department of War will only add to its burdens. The country is already suffering from internal economic problems and social ills, issues that Trump has neglected, giving them the same attention he has devoted to his war agenda. Meanwhile, the international community is increasingly turning away from such dark policies. The Iranian episode in the global arena is being orchestrated through statements, pronouncements, and verbal sparring, all aimed at disseminating information as mere rhetoric, unreliable for uncovering the whole truth. Some weapons that Iran has not disclosed remain a mysterious enigma, threatening the stability of neighboring countries and those hosting American bases. Should America strike Iran, the entire scene would escalate into a third world war, leading to further political attrition and economic collapse. Statistics show a significant decline in maritime trade, and militias would become active on the borders of countries that have not taken a clear stance on global events. Being a friend of America does not exempt a country from being drawn into conflict, even under the flimsiest of pretexts. International law has been shaped to serve the Zionist-American vision of global hegemony, and membership in the United Nations will not alter this reality. The language of engagement today is the language of force, not negotiation and restraint. The weapons used in wars may not be limited to conventional arms; they may include biological weapons, ideological weapons, and other types that remain undisclosed until the last moment. This is because the cards of the international game are never fully revealed, and the element of surprise is always present. Every country has its own foreign policy and international stances. However, the blame lies with the Arab states that have succumbed to the aggression that devastated Gaza and destroyed its infrastructure. Every action has a reaction, and those who participated in the barbarity of the aggression against the Gaza Strip and merely condemned it will not escape the consequences of a third war, should one erupt.
Systems are not preserved through silence; rather, they collapse through their own inaction, cowardice, and humiliation. The next war, should it erupt, will bring with it many new realities that will lead to the emergence of a new world order, one that shows no mercy to the weak. The weak are those whose economies are fragile, whose people’s awareness is low, and whose workforce is neither serious nor aware of the magnitude of the stakes that await them. The world will inevitably witness a transformation that will alter perceptions, shift power dynamics, and tip the scales in favor of those who deserve it, without sentimentality or favoritism. Instead, there will be justice for just causes, because global change begins with an act of aggression and ends with a balance of power.
Opportunities.
The details of a limited strike, should it occur, will determine the new roadmap. Focusing on the initial strike will clarify the initial ambiguity before any attack.
Regardless of Trump’s aggressive reactions, whether towards the media or his opponents, his racism in some situations has been blatant. While Trump’s approach to managing affairs is troubling, it has also presented an opportunity for those working closely with him. By observing his habits and reactions, his adversaries can deduce information that allows them to manipulate or control him. Despite their success in this regard, no one can underestimate the difficulty of steering him in the same direction the following day, as Michael Wolff testifies in his book, “Fire and Fury: The Trump White House.”
Can Iran discern Trump’s seriousness from his jest if the matter concerns the outbreak of a third war, the duration and scope of which are unknown unless Trump decides to end it? Time will tell.
Dr. Samira Bitam is an Algerian writer. This is a translated version of an article she write for the Al Rai Al Youm website
CrossFireArabia
