اخبار فلسطين – وطن نيوز
فلسطين اليوم – اخبار فلسطين اليوم
W6nnews.com ==== وطن === تاريخ النشر – 2026-03-02 13:44:00
The Israeli-American war on Iran is no longer just a conflict over the nuclear program or ballistic missiles, but has turned into an integrated project to reshape the region politically, security-wise and economically. The nature of the current conflict reveals that it goes beyond traditional deterrence tools to reach the level of engineering the entire geopolitical field by subjugating a pivotal regional state and rearranging the balance of power in a way that guarantees Israel’s hegemony as the first regional power. In this context, the question becomes: Is the goal to modify Iran’s behavior or dismantle its regional role? Is the confrontation related to technical issues, or the future of balances in the Middle East? A careful reading indicates that the issue is deeper than just a “confrontation” as a prelude to containment, but rather it is moving towards redefining the region in accordance with the long-term Israeli expansionist colonial project, which is consistent with American policy. Iranian geopolitical power – moving the battle beyond the borders Tehran’s power is represented in its ability to move the battle from its national geography to multiple regional arenas. This cross-border deployment is not limited to the military dimension, but rather includes political, security and economic dimensions. Iran has been able to build a network of allies in a number of Arab countries, giving it strategic depth that goes beyond its national borders. This expansion could lead to the ignition of fronts extending from the eastern Mediterranean to Bab al-Mandab. The war may not remain confined to a specific geography, but may turn into a multi-level regional conflict. Brinkman Diplomacy – Waterways as a Political Weapon In this context, Iran has an additional pressure card represented in its ability to transform international waterways, primarily the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, into political bargaining chips. What Tehran is practicing falls within the framework of what is known in international politics literature as “brinkmanship diplomacy,” where the threat of obstructing global energy flows is used as a negotiating card. The world, especially Europe and the United States, depends fundamentally on the stability of these corridors, which represent the global artery of trade and energy. Therefore, any escalation in these sensitive points puts the major powers in front of a zero-sum equation, either maintaining global economic stability, or engaging in a comprehensive confrontation that may extend beyond the borders of the region. Iran’s power, in essence, is not based on traditional military superiority in the classical sense, but rather on its nature as a non-traditional actor within a traditional international system. It does not seek to resolve the war according to the model of direct military victory, but rather to maximize the cost of defeat for its enemies to a level beyond their ability to bear. Its strategy is based on investing time, sapping the political will of its enemies, and using its regional networks as tools of extended pressure. In this sense, the confrontation turns from a conflict of armies into a conflict of wills, where steadfastness and continuity become crucial elements in determining outcomes. The strategic goals of the Israeli war are beyond overthrowing the regime – dismantling and restructuring. The Israeli-American war on Iran is no longer limited to the traditional goal of forcing Tehran to retreat within its borders or reduce its military capabilities. The prevailing political and security discourse indicates that the goal goes beyond imposing restrictions on the production of conventional and strategic heavy weapons, especially long-range ballistic missiles, or even dismantling and destroying the Iranian nuclear program. These goals, despite their importance, represent the first level of the Israeli approach. The deeper level relates to reshaping the strategic environment surrounding Iran, by ending the state of alliance between it and its allies in some Arab countries. Weakening or dismantling these networks means practically stripping Iran of its regional depth and turning it into a geographically and politically besieged state, leading either to the elimination of its allies or to domesticating them and reintegrating them into new regional arrangements subject to different balance equations. However, the strategic reading indicates longer-term goals. The issue does not stop at the limits of changing Iran’s behavior, but rather is related to a broader project to tighten control over the region. In this context, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to consolidate Israel’s position as a dominant power that imposes the rules of the political and security game in the Middle East. This ambition goes beyond overthrowing the Iranian political regime to thinking about reshaping the Iranian interior itself, by pushing towards a new political process that may lead, in one of its extreme scenarios, to redrawing the internal map of Iran or dismantling it into multiple entities, ensuring the end of its ability to play an influential regional role. This proposal may seem exaggerated to some, but historical experience indicates that major strategic projects are achieved through long time accumulation. The period extending between the first Zionist conference held in Basel in 1897 and the partition decision in 1947 did not exceed 50 years, which is a relatively short period in the life of states. Hence, long-term planning can transform what today seems a theoretical vision into a political reality. At a time when the Zionist movement and world Jewry are working to achieve the Greater Israel project, Israel is the spearhead in achieving that biblical project. It is noted that Netanyahu’s behavior is inseparable from this context, as it is based on political thought with biblical references, which expresses an expansionist tendency of a colonial nature. Although his behavior as head of the executive authority can be interpreted within the framework of protecting Israeli “security,” the personal dimension cannot be ignored. The effort to remain in power, and to present himself as an extension of the “founding fathers,” and even the aspiration to immortalize his name in history, constitutes an influential factor in decision-making. Political history provides us with many examples of leaders who fought wars and committed atrocities out of personal ambition or the desire to consolidate the political legacy. Thus, the Israeli war on Iran is not understood only as a military or security confrontation, but rather as a multi-dimensional strategic project aimed at reformulating regional balances and consolidating long-term Israeli hegemony, within a context in which the ideological dimension overlaps with geopolitical calculations and the personal interests of decision-makers. American goals – managing balances and preventing the formation of a parallel power. The United States, from For its part, it views Iran as a regional power seeking to reshape the balance of power in a way that conflicts with American interests. The American goal is not limited to curbing the nuclear program, but rather includes preventing the formation of a regional axis capable of undermining American influence in the Gulf and the Middle East. The American military presence in the Gulf and the region in general reflects this approach. In Bahrain, the headquarters of the Fifth Fleet, which oversees the Gulf, the Red Sea, and parts of the Indian Ocean. In Qatar, Al Udeid Air Base is located, which represents the forward headquarters of the US Central Command and includes thousands of soldiers. This spread reflects an awareness of the importance of the region, and confirms that the confrontation with Iran is part of a broader strategy to control the vital space of the United States. Economic dimensions – control of the joints of the global economy. It is true that the region is considered politically an area of influence for the United States of America, but there are competitors to it, even adversaries, the first of which is China. The region represents one of the most important global consumer economic markets, and its geographical location makes it a link between the East and the West. This, in addition to the huge and diverse natural resources, especially oil and gas, gives it double strategic importance. This is in addition to waterways, which are considered the main artery of international trade, so controlling this space means controlling energy supplies and prices, and maritime and land trade routes. War, in this sense, is not only military, but rather a battle over the global economy and the joints of globalization. In light of the continuing Israeli threat: Arab national security – between erosion and restructuring. In light of the current regional transformations, Arab national security is no longer a stable concept, but rather has become a direct hostage to the outcomes of the conflict between Israel and the United States on the one hand, and Iran on the other. If Iran is subjugated or its regional networks are dismantled, Israel will become the undisputed hegemon, which will lead to a severe imbalance of power and place the Arab sphere in a state of unprecedented strategic exposure. The problem does not lie only in the rise of one regional power at the expense of another, but in the fragility of the Arab system itself. The absence of a unified collective security vision, and the decline of the concept of joint Arab deterrence, made each country move according to its narrow calculations, which deepened the fragmentation and opened the door to increasing foreign interventions. In light of the continued Israeli hegemony and the expansion of the scope of security and political dictates, some of the Arab space is turning into a field for redefining security according to a non-Arab perspective. This reality threatens to transform the Arab vital space into an arena for geopolitical re-engineering according to external interests, whether through control of waterways, energy systems, or regional security arrangements. With the absence of an independent Arab project, Arab national security becomes vulnerable to gradual erosion. Arab national security, therefore, today stands between two paths: the path of gradual erosion under the weight of external hegemony and re-engineering, and the path of restructuring through a new strategic awareness that realizes that the absence of regional balances does not necessarily mean achieving stability, but rather may open the door to a stage of permanent dictates. The real bet lies in the ability of the Arabs to move from a position of reaction to a position of action, and from adapting to the results of the conflict to influencing its equations. The future of war: Iranian steadfastness and the Israeli street’s tolerance The future of the war depends to a large extent on a double internal equation: Iran’s ability to strategically withstand on the one hand, and the limits of the Israeli street’s tolerance for the human and material cost on the other hand. Iran does not deal with the war as a lightning battle, but rather as a long-term conflict managed by the logic of attrition and the erosion of hostile will. Therefore, its ability to absorb blows, maintain a minimum of internal stability, and keep state institutions together are crucial elements in determining the course of the confrontation. Any large-scale internal imbalance may change calculations, but on the other hand, internal cohesion gives Tehran a wider margin of time to maneuver. On the other hand, the Israeli street is facing an unprecedented test. Despite its mobilization and security nature, it remains highly sensitive to human losses and long-term economic turmoil. If the war turns into a prolonged exhaustion, with a continuing threat to the home front and disruption to the economic sphere, the political cost may begin to pile up. Then the human cost may turn into direct pressure on decision-makers, whether through elections or through protests, demonstrations, and internal divisions. Therefore, the most influential scenario is not necessarily a short-term comprehensive war, but rather a long gray war that keeps the fronts open without resolution. In such a context, the equation of time becomes crucial. The longer the confrontation lasts, the greater the possibilities for a shift in political positions within Israel, and the greater the international pressure on Washington to reset the pace. On the other hand, Iran’s ability to maintain an internal balance, and prevent internal pressure from turning into widespread political turmoil, will determine the extent of its ability to impose a new deterrence equation. The future of war, then, is not only decided on the battlefields, but rather in the depths of the societies concerned. The cohesion of the Iranian interior versus the limits of Israeli tolerance will shape the final outcome of the conflict, and determine whether the confrontation will lead to the restoration of regional balance, or to an escalation that opens the door to a more dangerous stage in the history of the region. The Israeli-American war on Iran is not a technical dispute over a weapon or a nuclear program, but rather a battle over the shape of the region and its future, and over who has the right to define security and stability in it. It is a confrontation between two projects, a project that seeks hegemony and re-engineering, and a project that seeks to withstand and impose a deterrence equation. Different. At the heart of this equation, days remain full of surprises, transformations, and unexpected situations. Prolonged wars reshape the actors’ calculations and produce new facts that may confuse prior estimates, making the course of the conflict open to possibilities that go beyond analysis and expected scenarios.
