Jihad Haider
Talking about the Israeli context does not mean any event that the United States initiated, as if it were doing so in isolation from its interests and ambitions in the region. And talking about American interests in the West Asian region does not mean that the interests of the enemy entity are ranked next. Rather, “Israel” interests are at the top of American interests. Add to that the US policy in this region is moving in what is called the regional environment of the enemy’s entity, and therefore its priorities in this region are in line with the interests of “Israel”. This characterization does not contradict the existence of discrepancies between them in stations that have their context and interpretation, in which the United States sees its interests, and in the same context the interests of “Israel”, according to a different perspective from the vision they see in Tel Aviv.
From this fact, it is also possible to approach the assassination event, its timing and style, and the ensuing threats, from the standpoint of the regional context directly related to the entity of the enemy. As well as being a direct part of the data that came in the background of the American decision.
A distinction should be made between two levels of analysis, the first, the origin of the direct military escalation decision against Iran and the axis of the resistance, and the second the decision specifically targeting the Hajj Qassem Soleimani team. At both levels, the Israeli dimension is also present at its highest levels.
On the first level, the direct American escalation against the Islamic Republic in the Iraqi arena came after a series of bets and failed options facing Iran and the axis of resistance. The starting point in this path in which the axis of resistance achieved more steadfastness and victories was represented in the recent period in the failure of the “extreme pressure” option to bring down the Islamic regime and subjugate it by dragging it to negotiations from a weak position to dictate the American conditions on it.
After that, Iran moved to the stage of a gradual response by reactivating its nuclear program and pushing it forward, to the security and political developments that the region witnessed, in which Tel Aviv saw a strong indication of the high level of motivation and motivation of the Islamic Republic.
This concept is no longer a mere appreciation of reality, but was also expressed by the chief of staff of the enemy army, Yves Kochavi, by saying, “As long as there is no response to the expansion of the Iranian nuclear program, and as long as the scientists are currently working on the warheads … without responding to them, at some point This may deviate from the field of strategic dialogue (with Europe) and move to actual capacity within several months. It is clear that Tel Aviv sees this as a red line that should be taken and initiated to confront it before it takes shape on the ground.
This coincided with an escalation in the capabilities and interconnectedness of the axis of the resistance in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, and he informed those who expressed the presence of this fact with the security establishment in the enemy’s entity. Active against “Israel”. And warning that it will initiate counter practical steps, even knowing that this involves a high risk of direct confrontation.
In the same vein came Kochavi’s recognition that Iran continues to develop its qualitative and quantitative capabilities, which pose a serious threat to “Israel”, despite the harsh economic sanctions and pressure exercised against it, which was also attended by Kochavi, when he considered that “Iran continues to manufacture missiles that reach the territories.” Israeli … This threat exists and is developing, and the Iranian military industry is larger than all the military industries of the State of Israel. “
In the face of this regional path, the United States and Israel had to initiate counter options aimed at trying to find some balance and limit the continued progress of the axis of resistance, leading to the reproduction of a different regional environment that enshrines American hegemony and provides security for the future of Israel.
However, this challenge carries a high risk of escalation as a result of the counter-response. Hence, the operational initiative had to be a deterrent as well, in order to avoid a response that “Israel” might not bear its repercussions. And since Israel is not alone capable of taking responsibility for an initiative of this magnitude at the regional level in the face of the axis of resistance, the United States has faced this challenge.
As for the decision to target Haj Qasim, along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and their brothers, it is due to the role he played at the regional level in the face of American hegemony and in the face of the Israeli occupation. And after the two parties realized the fact that his person represents one of the most important elements of power for the axis of resistance … and he has become a direct threat to American hegemony and Israeli national security.
Moreover, its targeting directly includes the required resounding message at this stage, through which the United States tried to prove to the decision-maker in Tehran, that it was determined to go far in its choice with the aim of reproducing a new equation and environment even if this option cost a direct military clash with Iran. It also relied on betting on the effects of the severe economic crisis that it suffers from, which was supposed according to their bets and estimates, to make the decision-making institution in Tehran more cautious, confusing and hesitant in taking any decision to respond that leads to a counter-response and thus to a confrontation that will lead to more economic exhaustion. at least.
On the other hand, the direct missile response came from Iranian lands and by announcing an official responsibility that squandered many of the bets on which the United States relied, particularly those related to the hypothesis that the leadership in Iran will refrain from responding with the aim of avoiding the rolling towards mutual responses that weaken the system that is first of any address else. Project vendetta … or deterrent messages … or other headlines.
But the missile response revealed that the vision that prevailed in the Iranian decision-making body stems from the fact that the effects and seriousness of the non-response are more dangerous than any American counter-response to the Iranian response. In doing so, it showed its willingness, in practice, to go further in the counter-response and counter-response processes.
This concept is clearly attended strongly by the American Decision Foundation. And I realized with her that any counter-response attempt would lead to rolling responses toward a military confrontation. This prompted her primarily to refrain from this response, which was obligatory in order to establish the equation that the United States sought and sought in Iraq and the region.
In light of these political and deterrent results, it can be said that Iran was able to dispel the stakes, estimates and endeavors of the United States in imposing a new equation that restricts the axis of resistance, and it also succeeded in thwarting the attempt to establish a new path at the regional level. The positions launched by the leader of the Islamic revolution, Imam Khamenei, revealed that what happened is only a slap, and that the response lies in removing the United States from the region, revealing that the region has entered a new conflict, with the assassination of Hajj Qassem. But this time it is directly against the global evil empire, the United States of America, with the aim of liberating the region from its influence.
The problem for Tel Aviv is that the attempt to establish a regional environment free from the threat to the reality and future of Israel has failed so far. And that the wager on Iran’s deterrence has dissipated. Instead, a new path was launched in the region that threatens the American presence and establishes a regional path that will ultimately hurt Palestine.
