100 days of the Iran war: a Gordian knot?
Last Sunday marked the 100th day of the US and Israel's war against Iran. Despite the agreed ceasefire, military clashes between Washington and Tehran continue to occur. In addition, Lebanon remains a flashpoint where Israel and Hezbollah are engaged in fierce fighting. Commentators paint a grim picture of the situation in the Middle East.
No one wants to be seen as the loser
This war is all about pride and vanity now, Der Standard sighs:
“The negotiations over an agreement are difficult enough as it is. ... But a psychological factor is further complicating things: Donald Trump and the Iranian leadership both want to declare themselves the victors in the end, and under no circumstances be seen as the losers. For that reason they feel compelled to react decisively to the other side's alleged and actual provocations. If one side fires, the other must fire back – and suddenly the ceasefire is in jeopardy again. Both sides want to fire the last missile and thereby prove that they are the strongest. Militarily speaking, the attacks of the past few days make no sense whatsoever, and merely serve to soothe the wounded pride in Washington and Tehran.”
Strategic uncertainty
Naftemporiki comments:
“The situation in the Middle East increasingly looks like a conflict with no clear resolution. On the one hand, diplomacy is effectively 'stalled'. The exchange of threats between Washington and Tehran continues on an almost daily basis, military attacks are ongoing, and every new incident is portrayed as a potential trigger for further escalation. On the other hand, the ceasefire is not entirely over, communication channels remain open, and both sides are carefully avoiding the step that would lead to all-out war. ... The result is a peculiar state of strategic uncertainty. No one is winning, no one is losing, and no one seems prepared to take the game to the bitter end.”
Tehran reaping the fruits of war
The Iranian regime is benefiting from the war, writes La Vanguardia:
“Iran is the big winner right now. ... On the domestic front, it has crushed the uprisings under the pretext of defending Islam against an external enemy. ... With the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz it has discovered a strategic tool that gives it power it never realised it had before. ... Under these circumstances, it suits Iran perfectly if the conflict simply drags on. Its plan has always been to maintain a tense situation in the region, which is why it has supported insurgents in Lebanon, Yemen, the Gaza Strip and Syria, and financed international terrorism. The Ayatollah regime can negotiate with Trump at its leisure while consolidating its nuclear programme and developing its arsenal of missiles and drones.”
Lebanon a pawn in a bloody game
Der Standard analyses the situation:
“Trump appears willing to make concessions on many points. But on the issue of Hezbollah's survival – a key Iranian demand – he can't deliver unless Netanyahu plays ball. ... It's not clear how long Netanyahu can withstand the pressure from the White House. After all, US support is the main guarantee of Israel's security. And with its missile attack on Israel, Iran has further raised the stakes in this bloody game of poker: the message is that without a ceasefire in Lebanon the war with Iran will not end, and Trump's self-inflicted dilemma won't be resolved. The exchange of blows between Israel and Iran is likely to be over for the time being. But Lebanon will remain a pawn in the game between Tehran, Jerusalem and Washington.”
Closest allies causing big problems
Trump's influence over Netanyahu is waning, observes La Stampa:
“The president, who backed Israel in its offensive against Iran, now finds himself in the opposite position: he is no longer merely a political and military instigator of the escalation but a desperate mediator in a conflict that is taking on the hallmarks of a never-ending war. ... One promises a final agreement with Tehran, the other invokes self-defence. ... 'The Donald' can ring up, get angry, issue warnings. But because Washington didn't really rein Israel in when its military decisions made broader agreements more complicated, Netanyahu knows he can push the limits.”
False hopes of regime change
Tehran's opponents underestimated its resilience, HuffPost Greece observes:
“Iranian society may be oppressed, and – clearly – completely at odds with its regime. But this doesn't mean that it would readily accept external military pressure as a means of 'liberation' or 'rationalisation'. On the contrary: any attack from outside gives the ruling system the opportunity to equate its survival with that of the nation. This is a fact the West finds difficult to grasp. ... Social exhaustion doesn't automatically lead to pro-American political change. And the military defeat of a state doesn't necessarily mean the political defeat of its regime.”
Bitter lessons for Trump
The US president should never have started this war, the Irish Independent surmises:
“Trump is simply trying to avoid the grim reality that there is no easy way out of a conflict he should never have entered in the first place. All the options are bad, and Trump has no one but himself to blame. ... Trump is learning the same bitter lessons that previous presidents learnt in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and that Vladimir Putin is now learning in Ukraine. War is not a targeting exercise, and the side with the most bombs does not necessarily win. Willpower counts more than weapons, and the ability to absorb punishment is ultimately more important than the ability to dole it out.”