Assaf Zoran
The line between persuading Tehran to denuclearize and provoking it toward rapid weaponization is dangerously thin.
Over the past eighteen months, tensions in the Middle East have escalated dramatically. The launch of hundreds of missiles from Iranian territory toward central Israel and F-35 jets striking near Tehran last year marked some of the most critical moments of the regional confrontation that began on October 7, 2023. Now, Tehran and Jerusalem are on a trajectory that risks further escalation in an already volatile regional conflict. At the center of this tension remains Iran’s nuclear program, seen as an existential threat by Israel and a major regime safeguard in Iran.
The debate is not over whether Iran should be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons but over how. To assess the best path forward and its impact on Iran-Israel relations, three main scenarios should be considered.
The first and most probable is a partial nuclear agreement, which may temporarily curb escalation but risks renewed hostilities without additional leveraging. The second, a comprehensive nuclear resolution, could significantly reduce tensions but remains unlikely due to time constraints and the wide gap between U.S. desires and Iran’s willingness to compromise. The third, an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear program, becomes increasingly probable in the absence of any agreement over the next months.
Could the strategies employed by global powers during the Cold War provide insights into alternative scenarios for reducing tensions in the Middle East? While détente between Israel and Iran would require fundamental shifts in perception and remains unlikely in the foreseeable future, certain measures can help reduce miscalculations and the sense of immediate threat. In a rapidly evolving Middle East, potential domestic and regional shifts may create better conditions for de-escalation.
No comments:
Post a Comment