Determining the “victor and the defeated” reveals the paradoxes of the war between Iran and Israel

When the mutual military operations erupted between Israel and Iran, targeting vital centers inside the two countries, many anxious questions about the future increased at the time, and about whether the confrontation will be long or will be contained with friendly initiatives led by international and regional parties. Questions were also raised about whether the matter will be limited to bilateral military depletion operations aimed at achieving limited deterrent goals by both sides, or that, with the development of the situation and the length of the conflict, will turn an open confrontation on all difficult possibilities, including expanding the operations circle to include other regions, especially with the United States entering the confrontation line by targeting Iranian nuclear facilities.

With the escalation of military tension, questions arose about the borders of the American role, especially since Washington used to support the Israeli entity militarily, economically, financially and diplomatic, as it harnessed its presence within the Security Council as a permanent member who possesses the right of “veto”, to prevent the issuance of decisions condemning Israel or imposing economic or military sanctions in the context of its repeated attacks on the rights of the Palestinian people and expanding it in the region.

The demand for the elimination of the Iranian nuclear program with military strikes has been present with Israeli leaders for a while, especially with the doubts that began to loosen about the possibility of turning it towards military uses. It seems that hesitation and caution shadow present at the use of this strict option, due to a set of considerations in general related to fear of a strong Iranian reaction, either directly or through its arms in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Syria, or because of the American reservations about this option, despite Washington’s withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear agreement in 2018.

However, the accelerating transformations that the region witnessed in recent months, with Trump’s arrival known for his strict stances to power, as well as the destruction of the Gaza Strip, and the accompanying targeting of a number of Palestinian leaders, then targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon with strong strikes, and the following the assassination of a number of its leaders, in addition to the successive operations that affected Yemen, in addition to the political transformations that occurred in Syria, and the result of all of this Noticeable to the Iranian tide within these areas, as well as the limited military escalation that characterized the relations between the two countries (Israel and Iran) during the recent period, all these factors that contributed to the maturity of the idea of ​​Israel targeting the Iranian nuclear program militarily, in its various facilities.

With the development of the field military situation, it seemed that the Israeli adventure was not accurately calculated, given the size of the military strikes that Iran responded, and targeted a number of facilities within the Israeli depth, which prompted the latter to demand the United States of America to intervene to resolve the battle at the lowest cost and in a way that preserves face.

Despite the confusion that printed the path of military operations, there appeared that there is a balance in the nature of the damage; Israel has not achieved its main goal of destroying the entire Iranian nuclear facilities, or stopping the danger of Iranian missile strikes that have often penetrated its defense systems, while Iran, for its part, was unable to prevent a number of its nuclear and military facilities.

Prior to the United States of America’s implementation of its air attack on three nuclear facilities (in the regions of Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan) inside Iran, the prevailing belief in the Israeli circles was that this attack would result in the destruction of these facilities completely, which could lead Iran to surrender and stop targeting the Israeli depth. However, Iran responded, stressing that it would not stop its nuclear program, considering that “the peaceful Iranian nuclear technology cannot be destroyed by any attack”, and has continued since the outbreak of the confrontation in targeting the Israeli entity with missiles and running aircraft.

Just as the war began with a paradox that both parties claimed that it was exercising its right to legitimate defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, it continued to inflict paradoxes after the United States of America announced a comprehensive destruction of the Iranian nuclear program, in exchange for Iran’s insistence that its nuclear program was not damaged, but rather gained the ability to withstand. The United States, which led the ceasefire initiative, is the same one that bombed nuclear facilities in Iran, and the same applies to the State of Qatar, which in turn contributed to crystallizing this armistice, but it was exposed to Iranian bombing. The paradoxes continue after the two parties (Israel and Iran) celebrated their victory in this confrontation.

The coming days are to specify the victor and the defeated in this confrontation, during which it was found that both parties have papers to pressure the other, while, once again, the fragility of the Arab regional system was exposed, and it is confirmed that the international and regional institutions related to the management of crises and the settlement of conflict, led by the United Nations, which have not yet moved with the required seriousness and effectiveness.

It is natural for this station to have consequences and influences on the regional and international systems, which requires Arab countries to restore their accounts towards overcoming differences, in the horizon of contributing to establishing a regional system that guarantees its various interests and strategic security, amid all these challenges and interactions, while investing the ongoing changes to revive serious discussions, regionally and internationally, regarding the solution of the two countries, in a way that guarantees the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.