| |
|
| Navigating the Crossfire: Israel-Iran Relations, U.S. Policy, and the Road Ahead By Ahnaf Kalam ● Oct 28, 2024 Smart Brevity® count: 4.5 mins...1200 words Today’s MEF Dispatch explores the continued military actions between Israel and Iran and their strategic maneuvering, with each side carefully gauging its next steps. From targeted airstrikes by Israel to Iran’s use of its proxy forces, both sides have heretofore exercised restraint in an effort to avoid what regional actors may perceive as a too-weak response while avoiding escalating into all-out war. Our writers explore this ongoing contest and discuss what may come next. This issue also condemns the breaking news that the Iran has executed German citizen and U.S. resident Jamshid Sharmahd, the latest demonstration of the rogue nature of the Islamic Republic’s murderous regime. |
Israel and Iran Are Unlikely to Escalate War Against Each Other – For Now By: Jonathan Spyer Israel’s recent airstrike in Iran aligns with a six-month pattern of controlled escalation rather than a decisive shift. Why it matters: The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran holds significant geopolitical implications. Potential for further hostilities remains, affecting regional stability. The use of non-state actors by Iran complicates direct engagements. Current military actions: Israel targeted Iranian military capacities, avoiding significant escalation. Air defense systems and missile manufacturing sites in Tehran were struck. The operation avoided nuclear facilities, aligning with U.S. interests. Future prospects: Both nations seem poised for continued conflict, using proxy forces. Iran appears to downplay the strikes, suggesting a desire to de-escalate. Israel remains undeterred, likely to target key figures when necessary. |
Iran Kills Jamshid Sharmahd, the Man Biden Left Behind By: Shay Khatiri Jamshid Sharmahd’s execution highlights Iran’s systemic hostage-taking strategy, not rogue actions. Why it matters: The U.S. must recognize and address Iran’s state-sponsored hostage tactics. Sharmahd’s case underscores the regime’s targeting of opposition figures. The U.S. administration’s response raises questions about its commitment to protecting citizens. Strategic implications: Iran’s actions reveal deep-seated vulnerabilities in U.S. foreign policy. The $6 billion hostage deal left Sharmahd behind, reflecting past diplomatic failures. Iran’s strategy continues to challenge international norms and U.S. policies. Future considerations: U.S. policymakers must reassess their approach to Iran. Recognizing the regime’s systemic behavior is crucial for effective diplomacy. A robust response is needed to deter future hostage situations and protect U.S. interests. |
Israel’s Restrained Iran Retaliation Is a Deadly Mistake By: Michael Rubin Israel’s recent restrained retaliation against Iran could be a critical mistake, prioritizing precision over impact. Why it matters: Israel’s approach may embolden Iran’s resolve, risking future escalations. Targeting the regime’s core could alter perceptions within Iran’s leadership. Current tactics may fail to deter Iran’s ongoing nuclear ambitions. Historical parallels: The North Korea precedent shows the pitfalls of restraint. Past diplomatic efforts with North Korea led to unintended nuclear advancements. Similar dynamics could unfold with Iran, demanding more decisive action. Future risks: Israel’s nuanced strategy might not suffice against Iran’s existential threats. Iran’s leadership remains committed to Israel’s destruction. Immediate action may be necessary to counter Iran’s long-term ambitions. |
The Long Roots of Iran’s Hatred for the Jewish State By: Jonathan Spyer Iran’s animosity towards Israel is deeply rooted in historical ambitions to lead an Islamic alliance. Why it matters: This enmity shapes Middle Eastern geopolitics and threatens regional stability. Iran’s strategy involves weakening Israel through proxies across the Arab world. The conflict impacts global alliances, notably with Russia’s involvement. Historical context: Iran’s antagonism dates back to 1979 and earlier Islamist movements. The Islamic Revolution marked a significant shift, targeting Israel directly. Iran’s influence has destabilized nations like Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Current dynamics: Israel’s conventional military superiority faces strategic limitations. Despite technological advances, Israel’s allies, including the US, restrain decisive action. Iran continues its proxy war, undeterred by periodic Israeli strikes. |
Israel’s Advocacy for Kurdistan Must Go beyond Tweets By: Loqman Radpey Israel’s support for Kurdish self-determination should transcend social media, advocating for U.N. recognition. Why it matters: Genuine support for the Kurds could strengthen Israel’s strategic alliances. Similar experiences of oppression make Kurds natural allies for Israel. A formal push could expose international biases and promote justice. Strategic steps: Israel should advance Kurdish rights through concrete actions. Propose U.N. recognition of Kurdish entities akin to Palestinian status. File cases against Iran and Turkey for crimes against Kurds. Broader implications: Advocacy could reshape regional dynamics and alliances. Consistent support reinforces Israel’s commitment to liberal values. A Kurdish alliance offers mutual benefits amid Middle Eastern instability. |
Though Limited, Israel’s Highly Successful Attack Leaves Iran More Vulnerable than Ever By: Lazar Berman Israel’s recent airstrike on Iran has left Tehran vulnerable, with key air defenses disabled. Why it matters: The attack showcases Israel’s military precision and strategic capabilities. Iran’s air defenses are weakened, increasing vulnerability to future strikes. The operation reinforces Israel’s ability to target key strategic sites in Iran. Potential consequences: Iran’s response options may include accelerating its nuclear program. The attack could prompt Iran to push further towards nuclear armament. Israel may feel compelled to take further action against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Geopolitical implications: The changing U.S. administration could impact regional dynamics. Potential shifts in U.S. policy could alter the strategic landscape for Iran and Israel. Iran’s weakened state invites further scrutiny and strategic recalibration. |
WATCH: John Bolton on the U.S. and the Turbulent Middle East: Threats and Opportunities By: Marilyn Stern John Bolton emphasizes regime change in Iran as the U.S.’s real objective amid regional tensions. Why it matters: Iran’s actions pose a significant threat to U.S. interests and allies in the Middle East. The “Ring of Fire” strategy involves proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis. Iran’s alliances with Russia and China complicate global dynamics. Strategic insights: The U.S. must adopt a firmer stance on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Support for Iranian opposition should be prioritized without military intervention. A change in Iranian leadership could shift current power dynamics. Long-term implications: Addressing Iran’s influence is crucial for regional stability. The Biden administration’s approach is seen as passive, risking increased tensions. U.S. policy must evolve to counter Iran’s growing threat effectively. |
WATCH: “Ceasefire in Gaza Would Have Saved Sinwar” Jim Hanson on Fox News Jim Hanson discusses the implications of military advice and actions in Gaza on FOX News. Why it matters: Israel’s decision to ignore ceasefire advice was pivotal in eliminating key Hamas figures. The push into Rafah led to significant losses for Hamas, impacting their leadership structure. U.S. advice to cease operations could have allowed Hamas to regroup, posing a continued threat. Hanson’s insights: Iran’s proxy network is vulnerable, and Israel’s strategic response is crucial. The elimination of key figures weakens terrorist leadership, pushing them to rely on less experienced individuals. The focus now shifts to Iran, where Israel may intensify actions following recent provocations. Future implications: The geopolitical landscape could shift with increased Israeli action against Iran. Israel’s strategy may involve targeting Iran’s core operations to destabilize its proxy network. The U.S. and Israel’s collaboration is key in shaping future Middle Eastern dynamics. |
Further Reading: “Somaliland Deserves Independence Before Palestinians” by Michael Rubin “UNIFIL ‘Club Med’ Failed in Its Mission” by Benjamin Weinthal |
| In future editions of the MEF Dispatch, we’ll continue to analyze Israel’s war against Iran’s proxies and assess its confrontation with the Iranian regime itself. From the Kurds’ struggles for independence to the future of the Abraham Accords and challenges and opportunities following U.S. elections, stay tuned for our forthcoming editions to keep abreast of developments in this key region of the world. Sincerely,
Ahnaf Kalam
Digital Media Specialist
Middle East Forum |
| Feedback Please share your thoughts on this edition. Was this edition useful?
Your responses are anonymous |
| MEF, an activist think tank, deals with the Middle East, Islamism, U.S. foreign policy, and related topics, urging bold measures to protect Americans and their allies. Pursuing its goals via intellectual and operational means, the Forum recurrently has policy ideas adopted by the U.S. government.
Copyright © 2024 Middle East Forum, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is:
Middle East Forum
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103 |
|
| Unsubscribe |
| Powered by
|
| This email was sent by Middle East Forum via Axios HQ |
|
