The military escalation could push Iran in the footsteps of North Korea, and the eliminated senior military leaders may have been replaced by more aggressive commanders, Arab publications write. Analysts also fear fueling violent extremism and destabilizing the region. The key question is how other players on the international stage, and in particular the United States, will decide to act.
The war that began at dawn on Friday after a series of Israeli strikes against Iran is unlike any other modern conflict in the region, writes Tariq al-Homayed in a commentary in the newspaper. “Ash Sharq al-Awsat”.
This war, which is different both strategically and militarily, is already changing Iran's position and is likely to have consequences of varying magnitude and duration throughout the Middle East. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may succeed militarily, but he risks pushing Iran towards even greater intransigence.
Tehran could return to the negotiating table, but that would resemble a capitulation rather than a real agreement, and with that Iran's strategic options continue to narrow, writes the author, who is a former editor-in-chief of the Saudi publication.
If the escalation reaches the point where Tehran strikes US interests in the Persian Gulf, Washington could be drawn into a direct confrontation. Then the Arab states in the Gulf will find themselves in the difficult situation of having to decide whether to take sides.
Historically, large-scale wars in the region have led to a desire to renew peace efforts, but will this pattern be repeated,” asks Al Homayed.
This war has been brewing for two decades - long-awaited, but repeatedly avoided, writes Abdulrahman Al Rashid for “Ash Sharq Al Awsat”. Iran has advanced in the development of its nuclear and missile capabilities, which from the point of view of the Israeli doctrine of deterrence made war necessary in order to restore the balance of power in favor of Tel Aviv and, accordingly, its deterrent power.
The veteran journalist makes an important historical reference. “As for the Israeli concept of deterrence, Ben Gurion says: “A long war is not an option for us. Deterrence is our real weapon.“ Moshe Dayan explains it this way: “We need to scare them so much that they won't even think about fighting a war, not just winning it.”
Deterrence remains a cornerstone of Israel's military policy, and that's why Tel Aviv seeks, at least in theory, to deprive Iran of its offensive capabilities. But a fight between two heavily armed and destructive powers is extremely dangerous. “We have seen in recent history how wars get out of hand,” the author emphasizes.
“Will both sides be satisfied with a half-victory to stop the war and return to nuclear negotiations? Perhaps Tehran is ready to stop the ongoing destruction, while the Israelis still don't seem satisfied with the results. They want to “complete the mission” to ensure that Iran will not threaten them for the next twenty years,” writes Al-Rashid. Against this backdrop, another key question is how other players on the international stage, and in particular US President Donald Trump, will act.
The elimination of a number of senior Iranian military personnel within hours was announced by Israel as a severe blow to Tehran, but it is possible that the commanders appointed in their place may be even more inclined to deepen the conflict, writes the “National”. “The deaths of experienced leaders who are believed to have called for caution behind the scenes could push more aggressive voices to the forefront in Iranian military circles,” The publication states.
According to the analysis, the effect of the escalation of hostility is also visible among the citizens of Iran, as even opponents of the government condemn the Israeli attacks on their country as attacks on Iranian sovereignty, which have caused casualties among the civilian population.
An editorial in the “National” points out that instead of achieving security, the escalation gives Tehran a pretext for self-defense to continue developing its nuclear program, despite international opinion. According to the Emirati publication, without a political end to the Palestinian-Israeli issue, the region will continue to be an insecure place, subject to conflict that threatens to escalate into destructive cycles of violence.
Instead of Iranians seeing Israel’s war against their country as an opportunity to overthrow the government, Iran experts say there is a “uniting under the banner” effect, writes the Qatari newspaper “New Arab”. As the conflict enters its next phase, the argument that only nuclear deterrence can keep the country safe is growing stronger.
Beyond the immediate military confrontation, the risks extend to the broader ideological landscape, notes Faisal Abbas, editor-in-chief of the Saudi newspaper “Arab News”. “The war in the Middle East is not limited to the battlefields, it fuels violent extremism. A prolonged conflict could be exploited by radical groups, which would further deepen instability in the region,” he explains.
The editor-in-chief of the Egyptian publication “Shoruk” Emad al-Din Hussein believes that the development of the conflict depends on the military capabilities of both sides, on the behavior of the United States and “on the impact of the continuation of the war on the global economy, especially on American citizens, who may find, for example, that Trump's support for Israel is what will lead to record levels of energy prices and other basic goods.”