Whatever happens between now and next Wednesday, the third round of war between a resentful Iran and a frustrated US will be on the horizon.
Destruction caused by Israeli-American bombings in Tehran/PHOTO: Profimedia
“Six weeks after Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941, Hitler's chief of staff jotted down a revealing detail in his diary.
The good news was that the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe had destroyed 300 Red Army divisions. The bad news was that German intelligence had estimated that Stalin's army had only 195 divisions. This miscalculation comes to mind these days as I follow developments in the Middle East,” writes Mark Almond, director of the Oxford Institute for Crisis Research, in an analysis for The Daily Mail.
At the time the United States and Israel launched operations against Iran, information about the position of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his key aides appeared relatively accurate.
Later, however, it became apparent that assessments of Iran's military structure and resources were far less accurate than originally assumed.
In particular, the extent of Iran's missile and drone arsenal has been significantly underestimated.
In the weeks that followed, Iranian attacks on Western allies in the Gulf and threats to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz showed that Tehran can cause global disruption without possessing nuclear weapons.
But an error of judgment by Israeli intelligence appears to have had even more important consequences.
Before the conflict began, Mossad director David Barnea suggested that domestic pressure and protests could lead to regime change in Tehran.
Although at the time the scenario seemed plausible, subsequent developments contradicted this expectation. The protests were harshly repressed, and instead of weakening the regime, the war appears to have strengthened internal cohesion in Iran.
As the truce term announced by Donald Trump draws to a close, there are fears that the resumption of the conflict could bring not only new loss of human life, but also new economic shocks at the global level.
The war evolved in a dynamic of its own
From the beginning, the war launched by the US and Israel against Iran evolved in a dynamic of its own, with effects that seem to have exceeded Washington's initial calculations.
For the leadership in Tehran, the absolute priority is the survival of the regime. In this context, the strategy seems to rely on resistance in the face of American and Israeli pressure, in the hope of domestic consolidation.
Although the airstrikes have damaged Iran's military infrastructure, Tehran's ability to launch missile and drone strikes remains relevant, including against US and Israeli interests in the region.
Before the current escalation, about 20% of global oil and gas supplies transited the Strait of Hormuz. Currently, the flow has been severely disrupted.
If the Western objective was to reduce Iran's income, the side effect was a sharp increase in energy prices, with risks of a global recession.
In parallel, some European states are warned that stocks of aviation fuel are limited, which could affect air transport in the coming weeks. There are also fears of possible pressure on food supply chains.
The structure of the conflict remains unstable
In this context, several Western governments are exerting diplomatic pressure to find a negotiated solution, but the evolution of the conflict remains unpredictable.
The position of the American administration is oscillating, alternating between tough rhetoric and signals of readiness for negotiation, including regarding the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
In practice, however, the ability to guarantee navigation security remains limited, as Iran can resort to tactics to block maritime traffic.
Yes, the US Navy can destroy mines when they find them, but if the truce breaks down, a combination of Iranian mines from small…boats and sporadic bombing of passing ships would be enough to stop the tankers once again.
Without taking control of ports on the Iranian coast, such as Kharg Island, the US cannot truly stop the Iranian threat to shipping. To do so would require military forces on the ground and, inevitably, American casualties.
Even if there were the political will to pursue this option, it would take time to send enough labor to the Gulf.
Powerful US warships, such as the aircraft carrier George HW Bush, sail around Africa to avoid passing through the danger of pro-Iranian proxies. The Houthis fire missiles at them in the Red Sea.
Also, Tehran-allied groups in the region, such as Hezbollah, represent additional risk factors for any eventual ceasefire agreement.
Despite some recent diplomatic signals, the structure of the conflict remains unstable, and the scenario of a resumption of hostilities is not excluded.
Even if the truce were to hold, the current balance remains fragile, and future developments depend on political and military decisions with global stakes, the analyst claims.
