Elections against the backdrop of an expected regional war

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

Despite the crowding of dates and stations, the complex questions that occupy the minds of observers and concerned forces in the Middle East and the world are still based on the fact that when will the battle break out between Iran and its opponents in America and Israel? What will Tehran do, which threatens more aggression against neighboring Arab countries? What will its supporters, called arms, do? What are the limits of the role assigned to them? Who draws it?

The timing for all of this remains the primary concern. The factors that control the eruption of the conflict or the extension of its lull period ultimately reflect the depth of the conflict and the rationale for charting ways out of it. In answering these questions, the scene can be dismantled into two parts: the timing and inevitability related to the clash, and then the functional role of the parties, factions, and arms allied with Iran.

Regarding the issue of timing and inevitability, between or after the Israeli and American elections, we have the right to insist on two possible scenarios. The first is an explosion during the transitional period, that is, during, before, or close to the American midterm elections, and this is what has become somewhat unlikely.

As for the second scenario, it is what can be considered a window of strategic opportunity. According to many analyses, it means making the period between the midterm elections and the presidential elections two years later, when the new administration officially takes over, a decisive golden period for all parties. In Israeli calculations, the leadership of Tel Aviv may see this transitional period as an opportunity to impose a military order, taking advantage of the late US administration’s preoccupation or the departing president’s unwillingness to engage in a major political confrontation, or benefiting from temporary absolute support, while in Iranian calculations Tehran prefers restraint during this period. To avoid giving an excuse for a devastating strike, or exactly the opposite if you feel that there is an imminent danger that requires a pre-emptive strike.

But let us abandon these long-term expectations, because in another, more immediate scenario, the outbreak of war after the elections scheduled during these days, and the stability of the administrations, is a strong possibility, and the Iranian leadership does not stop talking about it, and US President Donald Trump also mentions it in various of his speeches.

However, the reality of matters does not wait for statements. The war is actually ongoing and is being waged by the Iranian side, the “Yemeni Houthis,” against the legitimate government and Saudi Arabia. The objectives of this war are sufficient to make it clear that the battle has not stopped, and that the Iranian goal, after trying to close the Strait of Hormuz, is to close the Red Sea and pressure Saudi Arabia to achieve stability and prosperity, and this is precisely what the Tehran authorities want.

However, postponing the comprehensive confrontation may happen if the diplomatic efforts that have recently been characterized by Russia’s strong entry into its line, through its extensive contacts with the Americans, the Iranians, and the countries of the Gulf Arab group, and mutual deterrence, succeed in containing the current escalation.

After the American elections, it is expected that the new administration will adopt a clear strategy, either maximum escalation or offer negotiation. So far, according to President Donald Trump’s statements, it is inclined to resolve and end the abnormal situation existing in the Middle East, and based on that, the paths of war or peace will be determined.

As for the question: Is war inevitable? Various answers remain available. War, in principle, is not inevitable, but it is the highest possibility. In political science, there is no 100 percent inevitable war, as back channels and secret negotiations play a role in preventing a comprehensive explosion.

Observers believe that Israel and Iran do not want a devastating and comprehensive regional war, even though Benjamin Netanyahu is talking about overthrowing the regime, and Tehran is seeking to remove the entity. However, the risk of sliding into a wide-scale war due to a mistake in calculations remains very high, which makes avoiding it very complicated. Here we must carefully monitor the role of the arms, in the event of war or not, as the factions allied with Iran that are part of what is known as the “Axis of Resistance” play a dual functional role. Axially, it changes according to the nature of the stage.

First: In the event of a comprehensive war (explosion), these arms turn into tools of frontal fire and military support within the doctrine of “unifying the arenas.” Hezbollah in Lebanon represents the spearhead and the most dangerous front for Israel, given its possession of a huge and accurate missile arsenal. Its role is to occupy the Israeli army, exhaust the air defense systems (Iron Dome and David’s Sling), and strike vital infrastructure to paralyze the Israeli interior, even if this leads to additional destruction in Lebanon, and expanding The Israeli occupation of its lands, all the way to Beirut.

In second place come the Houthi militias in Yemen, and their role is focused on economic strangulation by targeting maritime navigation in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab, and launching long-range missiles and drones towards Saudi Arabia, to paralyze it and prevent it from performing its supposed role in finding solutions to the major conflicts occupying the region and putting an end to them. In addition, the Houthis can launch some missiles towards southern Israel (Eilat), with minimal effects.

As for the Iraqi factions, they are usually used as launching pads for missiles and drones towards the Arab depths in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, and sometimes Israel, which warned those factions on previous occasions, so they withdrew from their “struggle against Zionism” for a while.

Second: The role of the arms changes in the event of neither war nor peace, to become a tool of political and diplomatic deterrence. The presence of these factions on Israel’s borders represents a safety belt for Tehran, which tells its opponents that any direct strike on Iran’s nuclear or vital facilities will face an immediate and intense response from these fronts, without the need for direct Iranian intervention in the beginning.

At the same time, these factions are negotiating cards, as Iran uses its influence and ability to calm or escalate the fronts, as strong pressure cards at the negotiating table with the United States and Western powers, to achieve political gains or lift economic sanctions.

Quoted from Independent Arabia