He is one of the most competent specialists on the Middle East, and in particular has personal access to Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. Professor of Middle East Studies at Princeton University and a fellow at the Hudson Institute, Bernard Haeckel is also a columnist for the French newspaper L"Express.
After the US and Israeli attack that led to the death of Supreme Leader Khamenei, followed by the Iranian retaliation targeting the Gulf states in particular, the American professor discusses the evolution of the Iranian regime and presents three possible scenarios for the Middle East. If the Iranian regime commits suicide, the chaos could become global, he warns.
L"Express: The Iranian regime responded to the death of Supreme Leader Khamenei by striking not only Israel but also the Gulf states. How could this war develop?
Bernard Heikkel: This is undoubtedly an existential moment for the Iranian regime. Will it commit suicide or will it become purely lethal? Traditionally, this is a regime that has always been very concerned about its own survival. It has always been cautious enough not to commit suicide. It has preferred to use the weapons of its proxies - Hezbollah or the Houthis. But with this attack, it could become much more aggressive, trying to close the Strait of Hormuz or attack oil centers throughout the Persian Gulf, with the aim of creating global chaos. So far, the Iranians have not chosen to attack energy and oil centers because they are very afraid that the Americans will retaliate by hitting their own facilities.
They also know that Donald Trump is very interested in keeping oil and energy supplies intact, as he wants to rely on a relatively low price per barrel for the elections. Therefore, the choice of targets by the Iranians will be an important indicator of whether they are determined to go all the way. Within the Iranian regime, there are still two essentially opposing positions. There is a very cautious group that explained that it was not necessary to avenge the assassination of General Soleimani in 2020 or advocated a measured response during the Twelve Day War. And there is a much more aggressive group that argues that Iran should have been far more brutal. After Khamenei's assassination, there was a rallying cry around the old guard of the regime - the hardliners.
L"Express: What are the possible scenarios?
Bernard Heikkel: There are three. The first is: the Iranian regime strengthens and becomes more radical. The hardliners have the capacity to control their population because they still have weapons and are well organized. Meanwhile, the population that despises them has no weapons and no inspiring figure. They lack Lenin.
The second scenario is the "Venezuelan" solution. That is, the regime remains, but is led by "soft" people who are ready to accept American conditions. Iran would become a normal country, without a revolutionary cause. In other words, a country that would pursue its national interests, not Islamist ones. It would no longer attack the United States and Israel in its rhetoric. It will stop subsidizing militias abroad and sowing discord in the region.
Finally, the third option is for the regime to fall, even if that is difficult. The fear in this case is that a civil war will break out. Iran could become a failed state, like Syria under Bashar al-Assad, or like Libya or Yemen. The integrity of its borders would be threatened by minorities like the Kurds, Baloch or Azerbaijanis. That would be worrisome for Iranians - we are talking about 92 million people after all - but also for its neighbors, like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
These Gulf countries do not want to see refugees or chaos in Iran. But the Israelis do not care. If Iran disintegrates, without a centralized state, that would not be a problem for them. Whereas the Saudis, like the Americans, want to avoid that because it would create enormous instability in the region, much greater than what is happening today in Yemen or Sudan. The stated goal of Israel and the United States is regime change. But I don't understand how this can be achieved solely through airstrikes, with a population unorganized for revolution, and without a strong leader.
L"Express: Is this already a major political victory for Benjamin Netanyahu, who seizes a historic opportunity to destroy the Iranian threat?
Bernard Heikkel: Yes, absolutely. We see Israel as the dominant power in the region, capable of striking anyone at any time. According to this new defense philosophy, the Israelis will no longer tolerate being surrounded by forces and ideologies that aim to destroy their country. Their next target could be the Houthis if they continue their actions.
Hence the growing Israeli presence in Somaliland. However, this is not necessarily a victory for Trump. It all depends on how long it lasts. If it is only a few days, then it is manageable. If the war escalates, if the Iranians decide to unleash their full force against oil and energy centers or ships, it could really cause chaos on a global scale. The oil market will be the first indicator.
L"Express: High-security cities like Dubai have been attacked, leading to some startling scenes. How will the Gulf Arab states react?
Bernard Heikkel: The whole model of stability, prosperity, and the dolce vita has collapsed. And the Iranians could hit back even harder, which would create huge problems for the Dubai model and for the region as a whole. That is why, contrary to the Washington Post’s claims, Mohammed bin Salman was not a supporter of an attack on Iran. And today, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE want this to end as quickly as possible.
They may try to pressure Trump to declare victory, even if the regime does not fall. They could also intervene to end the war quickly. There is a debate within the Saudi regime about sending planes against Iran. Will this remain a symbolic move or is Saudi Arabia ready to enter a real war? It is not clear. In any case, both the Saudis and the Emiratis prefer a weakened Iranian regime that remains in power to chaos.
L"Express: Is this Donald Trump's biggest geopolitical gamble yet?
Bernard Heikkel: Yes. I don't know how Netanyahu convinced him that it would be over quickly and with great success. Without that, he wouldn't have dared to act. The US military warned him of the difficulties. But Netanyahu must have told him that the Iranian regime has never been so weak, with no air defenses or militias in the region and no great popular support, after the murder of 30,000 of its own citizens. Moreover, Trump had given his word that he would help the Iranian people, and then he broke it.
This betrayal deeply upset him. That's why he wants everything to happen as quickly as possible. If the regime does not fall or change, but instead strengthens further, causing oil prices to skyrocket, then Trump will have learned a huge lesson, like other American presidents before him, such as George W. Bush, who believed that the Iraq war in 2003 would be a quick one. But Trump is a follower of Roy Cohn, his former lawyer in New York, who taught him that he is the one who decides what is true and what is not. Today he claims that the American economy is in perfect health, which is not true. Therefore, he will be perfectly capable of saying: "We killed Khamenei, it is a total victory and we stop."
L"Express: Europe seems to have completely lost its influence in the region. It was not even consulted before these attacks...
Bernard Heikkel: However, the French and the British have a historical presence in the region. But it is clear that they are just spectators. Ultimately, the Europeans will side with the winner. If a country like Saudi Arabia starts a war against Iran, the Europeans will side even more strongly with the Americans and the Arab states. But the Europeans do not have the intelligence and logistical capabilities of the Americans or the Israelis, who have now changed the nature of the war.