Israel borne out ...
Page 1
How could the current situation play out to Iran’s advantage?
All states in the region — particularly the Persian Gulf Arab monarchies — have been left deeply uncertain about whether the United States will continue to guarantee their security vis-à-vis Israel. A great deal of skepticism has been sown; rulers may avoid airing the debate publicly, but the populations of those countries are now alert to what has transpired. This is especially true at a time when [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu has openly raised the idea of creating a “Greater Israel” in an interview with an Israeli domestic outlet, signaling an intention to occupy parts of several regional states — Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Sudan and others.
Under these circumstances it is obvious that regional actors have been forced to conclude that the region’s security can only be guaranteed by the region’s own states. The proposal that Iran advanced during [former President Hassan] Rouhani’s term — to form a regional security coalition to look after the region’s security collectively — has come back into circulation among regional capitals, with a renewed emphasis on states collaborating to provide for their own security and no longer placing trust in the United States. The argument is that foreign forces should withdraw from the region because their presence is not only unhelpful but detrimental to regional interests.
For decades Iran has advanced this very argument. Attempts were made to portray Iran as the enemy rather than Israel, but it has now become clear to many that Israel is the principal threat and that Iran is a friend to many of these states — a partner they can rely on.
Could this attack affect current pressures to disarm the “Axis of Resistance” and Hezbollah?
The attack itself has made plain that Israel seeks to strike other regional states, and only those countries that possess the capacity to resist and defend themselves will be able to stand up to Israel. States that lack that capacity will face destruction. Some commentators frame the issue around Hezbollah specifically, but Israel’s broader aim appears to be pinning on the Lebanese army a mission that the Israeli military failed to accomplish during the 66-day war — namely, to disarm the resistance forces so Israel can then manufacture a pretext for action.
It is well understood that falsehoods can be circulated to justify aggression, as is happening now in Gaza, where mass killings are taking place with the backing of the United States and Western powers. If Lebanon is attacked and its population is subjected to mass violence, the same pattern can be expected: the United States and European states will stand behind Israel. So long as resistance exists in Lebanon, the people will retain a degree of security; if resistance and its weapons are removed, there should be no doubt that Israel would not hesitate for a moment before launching an assault and carrying out mass killings under various pretexts.