Dr Khairi Janbek
By Dr Khair Janbek
We became accustomed for a while to the mutual bombardment of Iran and Israel for the first a couple of days. Then Israel started declaring that it had achieved its objectives whilst Iran maintained its own momentum, saying it is also teaching Israel a lesson.
But now the new flaring conflict is lasting longer than expected. We really don’t know for certain what are the objectives as the declared intentions keep changing on daily basis and the hidden objections tend to be irrelevant, at least for the time being because we have no clue about them.
What is certain is that neither Israel nor Iran are naïve to think that, a protracted campaign of mutual bombardment, is in their interest. The reality however, is that a war of attrition is not in their interest of either, and may serve the interests of the two other regional powers: Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
But would both Israel and Iran willingly allow Turkey and Saudi Arabia to replace their influence? This is not very likely, as we can clearly see both sides are trying their best to drag others into the conflict by turning it into a regional conflgeration, by dragging the US and the EU on one side, and the Russians, Chinese, and Pakistanis on the other.
One at this juncture must say that a regional conflict, even by unintended consequences may lead to a wider global conflagration, quickly bringing in world powers and states that will not sit by the sidelines.
On the face of it, anyone cannot miss the fact that bombarding Iran came on the first day of the end of the two-month grace period which the US gave to Tehran to reach an ‘ironclad’ nuclear agreement. So at least on the face of it, the whole issue is related to forcing Iran to come back to the negotiating table with the US albeit with a weakened position.
But then again, the contradictory statement of the administration in Washington could mean anything or nothing, implying for certainty that it had prior knowledge of the Israeli attack on Iran.
Another idea which was thrown into the arena in a flip-flop manner, is that of helping in the process of regime change, but if one can say anything, is that when the Iraq-Iran war erupted, it was still in the early days of the Islamic Revolution and there was strong opposition to the mullahs regime.
And rather than creating a possibility for a regime, the war created a united nationalist response against the then Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. In a sense what started with a serious possibility of regime change ended up uniting the forces of the country.
Therefore, if the intention of the Israelis is regime change, then they better think twice about. Still, Iran is a country of more than 92 million people, with a territorial space of about 1.6 million kilometers so anything is possible. Just for interest, it is argued that Iran is 75 times the size of Israel.
So where do both parties go from here? One thing is for sure: One doesn’t know the extent of damage the two parties can do to each others’ nuclear arsenals. But if Israel feels it may not be able to destroy the Iranian nuclear infrastructure but can make it costly for them to re-start their programme, that would be naive because the Russians, the Chinese, and Pakistanis would be more than happy to offer their expertise.
One must add here however, that in the Near East, things can change very quickly.
Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris, France. He has contributed this article to crossfirearabia.com.
CrossFireArabia
