Washington: US media outlets are increasingly drawing comparisons to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, highlighting a series of victories by Israel against Iran. These narratives often depict Israel as having launched effective attacks on Iran, targeting its leadership and nuclear scientists. In the context of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's campaign in Gaza, these Israeli strikes are framed by much of the Western media as a war effort against Tehran.
According to TRTworld.com, Israel, unlike other states in the region, possesses nuclear weapons, receives advanced weaponry from Washington, and is protected by sophisticated American air defenses. If the US formally enters this ongoing conflict, the consequences could be more destabilizing than anticipated. Iran's allies, part of its Axis of Resistance, might be reactivated, stretching US capacities across multiple fronts.
What started as a shadow war is becoming a multi-domain confrontation with significant risks of regional implosion. Sergei Markov, a Russian political analyst, notes that while Iran is currently fending off Israeli attacks, direct US involvement could cause Tehran to lose ground. Markov points out the uncertainty surrounding the conflict, particularly due to the improbability of a US ground invasion and the unpredictable reaction of Iranian society.
Matthew Bryza, a former US diplomat, doubts a full-scale ground invasion of Iran is likely. Instead, he envisions targeted strikes on Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility and continued logistical support for Israeli air campaigns. Bryza suggests that if US and Israeli efforts succeed in crippling Iran's nuclear capabilities, a more stable Middle East might emerge. However, not all experts agree, with some warning that bombings might not significantly delay Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Military action is unlikely to be definitive, wrote James Acton, a director at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. A failure to bring down the Iranian leadership could lead to increased tension and potential Iranian responses like blocking the Strait of Hormuz or hybrid attacks on US and Israeli targets.
If escalations lead to Iranian attacks on US bases, deeper US involvement could ensue, potentially leading to another Middle East war. Krieg suggests that surrender is unlikely, with the regime in Tehran more likely to escalate if it perceives an existential threat.
Globally, a conflict in Iran could trigger an oil shock, especially if Iran blockades the Strait of Hormuz, affecting 20 percent of the world’s oil supply. Financial markets would face instability, and global supply chains could be disrupted, empowering revisionist actors like Russia and China.
Domestically, Trump's Iran war ambitions are causing discord within his MAGA base. Pro-Trump figures have questioned the wisdom of war with Iran, revealing rifts between interventionists and anti-war conservatives. Such a conflict could undermine Trump's America First vision, entangling the US in another Middle Eastern quagmire and weakening its Indo-Pacific position.
Bryza warns that a war with Iran could provoke a backlash among Trump's supporters, posing a political liability for Trump and the Republican Party. Despite potential backlash, Trump may proceed, believing his base will follow. However, a significant loss of American lives could spark a public backlash, challenging Trump's ability to contain the situation.