It all sounds so surreal. The dramatic escalation and de-escalation signify Trumpian brinkmanship. His actions and contradictory pronouncements over the last few days have left the world in a spin. After claiming to have obliterated Iran’s nuclear facilities following intense American bombardment, and hinting at regime change in Tehran, he appears to have turned peacemaker.
A tentative ceasefire, reportedly brokered by Qatar, is now in effect between Israel and Iran. The tit-for-tat strikes left hundreds dead. But the conflict is far from over. The 12-day war the Zionist state initiated has cost both countries heavily.
While there are no winners, the confrontation has broken the myth of Israeli invincibility. Tehran continued to fire missiles deep inside Israel. It was America’s direct military intervention that changed the balance of force. That too did not lead Iran to surrender, as demanded by Trump. The ceasefire is not one-sided. Tehran’s consent came after Israel agreed to pull back. Never before has the Zionist state appeared so vulnerable despite US military backing, with Iranian missiles penetrating its most powerful air defence system. Israeli attacks may have crippled Iran’s military capabilities but could have never stopped Tehran from retaliating.
America’s military intervention was reportedly limited to bombing Iran’s underground nuclear facilities. In a post on social media, Trump said the Iranian sites had been “totally destroyed”. But the claim has been disputed by nuclear experts. The UN nuclear chief, Rafael Grossi, said: “At this time, no one, including the IAEA is in a position to assess the underground damage at Fordow.” Fordow is Iran’s largest underground nuclear facility.
Some top nuclear experts claim that Iran still has a stockpile of enriched uranium that could easily be turned into weapons grade. This raises questions about America’s claim of the destruction at Fordow and other nuclear sites that forced Tehran to agree to a ceasefire and come to the negotiating table.
Many analysts say that regime change in Iran is still on the Israeli-Trumpian agenda.
In fact, Iran had never refused to negotiate and was engaged in nuclear dialogue with the Trump administration before Israel’s attack derailed the process. It has been Tehran’s position that it was willing to return to the negotiating table once Israel stopped its strikes. Trump’s reckless move to join hostilities complicated the situation. He called on Iran to surrender, but that won’t happen.
Nevertheless, the actual damage to the nuclear facilities would be an important question as the two sides, according to reports, get ready to resume talks in a few days. The US delegation will presumably be led by Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff.
Trump’s decision to directly enter the war against Iran threatened to destabilise the entire region, with serious consequences for global security. Even America’s Western allies see Washington’s joining Israel’s war as exacerbating an increasingly chaotic world order. It was obvious that Israel’s pressure led the Trump administration to jump into the fray despite strong opposition among its own supporters at home. It was seen as a negation of the president’s long-standing pledge not to get America involved in a war abroad. Washington called it a one-off strike, but strong apprehension remained that the US could get sucked into a wider conflict with no quick exit options.
However, matters took a dramatic turn soon after the US air strikes on Iran. Trump announced a ceasefire following a choreographed retaliatory strike by Iran on a US military base in Qatar. It was a deliberately weak strike of which Iran had already informed the Americans and the Qatari government. Trump’s remarks also reinforced the perception that the Iranian response was carefully coordinated to allow both Tehran and Washington some face-saving.
Most importantly, Israel, though reluctantly agreeing to the ceasefire, said it had achieved its objectives. Yet it did not clearly define what its objectives were when it launched its unprovoked war against Iran. It was not just Iran’s nuclear programme and military power that Israel saw as a threat; Israel has also long sought regime change in Iran. But it could not get the support of previous US administrations for its belligerent plan. The Zionist regime, however, has been encouraged by Trump’s social media post: “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???”
It’s not clear whether the regime change plan has been relegated to the back-burner for now. But many analysts believe the issue is still very much on the Israel-Trump agenda. Any such move will be highly disastrous for regional and international security.
True, the US has been responsible for scores of instances of regime change globally, through both covert operations and direct military intervention. But these came at a huge cost for America and the affected countries. Most of the latter suffer from chronic instability, chaos and economic impoverishment, recent examples being Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan. Israel cannot manage a regime change without American support.
The ceasefire between Israel and Iran and the reported resumption of nuclear negotiations between Washington and Tehran are a positive development. But much scepticism remains about Israel’s belligerent impulses and whether these can be contained.
Published in: Dawn News
Link here: Brinkmanship in ME
Tags:
Israel and Iran War