Iran will control itself; attacks will not develop into regional war

The Israeli war with Hamas has been continuing for more than 6 months, and it is no longer confined between the two parties in light of talk of a truce and ceasefire, but what is happening on the ground is an expansion of the scope of the war to include groups and countries in the Middle East and even the world, and it may turn into a Global war, after it was a shadow war through proxies, and not directly between Iran and Israel.

Professor of Contemporary History at the Egyptian Ain Shams University, Dr. Jamal Shakra, believes that: “Any truce or ceasefire that Israel calls for is to reorganize its ranks and implement the strategy for invading Rafah, and Tel Aviv is the beneficiary of any ceasefire, as more weapons will flow to it from The United States and Europe.

As for targeting the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Shakra believes that this operation: “is to drag Iran into a war so that it can clip its wings in cooperation with the United States and with the entire European West.”

Iran will not take the bait

Dr. Jamal Shakra believes that: “Iran will not swallow this bait. Anyone who follows Iranian-Israeli relations will notice that these relations were strong and good before the Khomeini Revolution of 1979. Iran recognized Israel in 1950, and the migration of Iraqi Jews to Israel was via Tehran.”

Shakra adds: “But after the revolution, Iran severed these relations and the relationship moved from cooperation to hostility, but this hostility was rhetorical, and with the penetration of Iranian influence into Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, it represented a threat and a new step in hostility to Israel, which is what caused a proxy war between the two parties through the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Houthis, as well as the Shiites in Iraq and Syria. However, because politics is a dirty and opportunistic game, we found that Iran imported from Israel the equivalent of $500 million in weapons during the first Gulf War. Until today, Iran’s war has been a rhetorical war. No real confrontation has occurred. But since the beginning of Iran’s tendency to produce nuclear weapons on the one hand, and Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus represented a new phase of the conflict between Iran and Israel.”

Dr. Jamal Shakra believes that: “The new thing is the direct Iranian attack on Israel, but Iran will control itself and these attacks will not develop into a regional war, because the outbreak of a regional war will destroy the entire region.”

There is a big gap between Israel and Hamas regarding the negotiations

Meanwhile, Iranian affairs researcher Hani Suleiman considered that: “There is a large gap between the two parties (Israel and Hamas) regarding negotiations on a ceasefire and a humanitarian truce, especially since the factions want guarantees regarding a permanent ceasefire and the release of detainees held by Israel, and do not want to repeat the mistake.” With the previous humanitarian truce, upon its expiration, Israel resumed its bombing of the Gaza Strip, especially since the current political situation is causing relative pressure at the international level to try to exclude Netanyahu and the Israeli government from the process of invading Rafah.

Regarding the Israeli bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Suleiman believes that: “This Israeli operation was intended to distract attention and deliver a message of pressure to the Iranian side and the militias associated with it not to take action and escalate the situation in confronting Israel.”

Suleiman added: “This process broke the course of the existing negotiations and somewhat distracted attention, and forced the Iranian side to search for ways to respond and try to take a step forward in a confrontation with the Israeli side. Netanyahu is the biggest beneficiary of this process and the process of freezing the ceasefire negotiations, and therefore He is the beneficiary of the lack of a ceasefire, especially since he did not achieve his goals on the basis of which he began his attack on Gaza, which will put Netanyahu in a critical position, which explains the reason for the Israeli insistence and Netanyahu’s stubbornness in trying to invade Rafah and trying to escape forward, because he is in a difficult position in the Israeli interior.

Suleiman believes that: “The Iranian response eased some of the pressure on Netanyahu, and gave him a margin of movement and flexibility to lean on, and he wanted to employ such a response to buy more time, but in the end, the ceasefire will mean the end of the Israeli action and the elimination of this government and many others.” The pending and postponed questions will be for Netanyahu to answer.”

Hani Suleiman pointed out that the essence of the Israeli-Iranian conflict is: “a somewhat complex file. Some put forward the idea that there is some kind of coordination between the two parties and that the Iranian response is a play or a kind of unreal confrontation, but if we organize the Israeli-Iranian conflict, we will see that there is a disagreement exists between the two parties and is present in the vocabulary and literature of the Iranian Revolution, and there is a history of confrontations between the two parties through different tools and methods.”

The expert on Iranian affairs believes that: “The Iranian-Israeli confrontation came at a later stage, and after the issue of exporting the revolution and Iran’s establishment of militias on sectarian grounds and spreading Shiism in the Arab body, Iran has always volunteered and used the Palestinian issue as a very important entry point to penetrate Arab society and the Arab peoples, and it has also worked A rift in societies by spreading Shiism, but historically Iran has not entered into serious and major confrontations with the Israeli side, considering that what Iran did was only create dozens of militias and destroy the stability of Arab societies, which is what happened in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.”

Suleiman said: “If Iran had focused and given priority to attacking Israel, it would have employed all these capabilities to attack Israel or support Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa and support Gaza since the beginning of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, especially in light of the analysis of Iran’s historical discourse of eliminating Israel.”

Suleiman believes that: “This uprising and this movement were not witnessed in a way that was balanced in Iran’s historical discourse. All the movements of Iran’s agents in Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq were dominated by the media and on the military level. They did not lead to achieving a change in the balance of power and will not change the equation.”

 “There will be no Israeli response.”

Suleiman considered that: “This experience exposed the duality in Iranian political discourse and the actual discourse on the ground. I am not saying that there is no disagreement or tension, as there is an existing area of major disagreements, but it does not amount to Iran starting a direct confrontation with Israel. It has other priorities and goals.

Iranian affairs expert Hani Suleiman expects: “There will be no Israeli response, given that the Iranian attack did not cause any military losses to the Israeli side. Yes, it is an operation that differs from all previous operations, and it is a qualitative shift in that there will be direct Iranian targeting of Israel, which is a shift.” The only thing in this matter, but this operation was tamed by the media, but there are no clear military objectives, as all the drones were confronted. The Iranian response is to relieve itself of embarrassment, to deliver some messages to its militias, their sympathizers, and the Iranian people.”

T/ Satt.

ANHA