The entire region has been worn down by every detail of this scene. There are no concluded negotiations, no convincing political settlement, and no war with a defined end. The daily cost of attrition may equal a devastating military war.
اضافة اعلان
All threats of a nuclear strike against Iran are intended to subdue Tehran in advance of any negotiations. The cost of a nuclear strike could extend to the entire region. This does not mean it is not possible. But threatening it at this moment is meant to coerce Iran, which also holds dangerous cards: from strangling the maritime shipping lanes, to threatening to cut internet cables, to igniting all the supporting fronts in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen, and threatening the Arab Gulf region with all that it means for economic sensitivity, social structures and a geopolitical position that affects the states of the region.
The region is choking under all these threats, especially as they are tied to the results of the Israeli elections and the US midterm elections. The powers of the American president and the Israeli prime minister allow them to declare war. For the Israeli prime minister, war could be a salvation from the obstacles to forming his government, and a lifeline for him inside Israel. It could also be a point of rush and escape for the Republicans in the United States in light of the midterm results. These are elections in which Americans will not forget the costs they pay every day because of the war: the effects on travel and daily life, rising prices, security fears, and caution about what is coming.
Amid these scenarios, Washington finds time to achieve goals in its own backyard. It extorts the Arab region to plunder its wealth, conclude arms sale deals, and collect payment for protecting the region. It also seeks to inflict a very bad economic backlash on Europe, China and Russia, despite the diesel deal under which Washington allowed the Russians to sell diesel. In the same vein, it seeks to extort Iran economically, and ultimately to benefit from the lack of resolution in the region to exhaust it, monetize economic gains, and eventually redraw the region.
This means that Washington still believes it will win in all cases, whether it prolongs the current situation without resolution, or reaches a settlement through which it harvests the profits it wants, before turning to Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt and other Arab countries. Or, if it launches a war through which it manages to win, with "winning" defined differently depending on the standard used.
We must be attentive here to the fact that Arabs are the party paying the highest price in every case. Anyone analyzing the scenarios in the previous paragraph will discover that we face a cost whatever the outcome, while the flexible room we have to maneuver is limited.
Yet we have the right to ask: is the gamble with the region guaranteed to succeed for the Americans and Israelis, or could it bring counterproductive results, reshuffle the cards, and drive those targeting it toward directions outside traditional calculations? The answer is easy: this is an uncertain gamble. If it were completely guaranteed, Washington would not need all this time without resolution. Perhaps the attempt to benefit temporarily from the lack of resolution will bring something back to the political and economic coffers of Washington and Tel Aviv.
