As the conflict in the Middle East unfolds, many are questioning how the war will ultimately end. The latest developments have seen Iran, a key player in the region, find itself in a precarious situation following the invasion of Israel by its ally, Hamas, on October 7, 2023. This event has marked the beginning of a tumultuous period for Iran, which has faced multiple setbacks since the escalation of hostilities.
Hamas, once a significant force, has suffered considerable losses, and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah has also been significantly dismantled. As a result, Iran’s air defenses have been neutralized, leading to a situation where Israel has established air superiority over Tehran, allowing it to conduct bombing campaigns on various military and infrastructure targets.
Despite these military successes, one critical objective remains unfulfilled for Israel: the destruction of the Fordow nuclear site. Analysts suggest that achieving this goal might require the use of specialized American bunker-buster bombs, which are currently not in Israel’s arsenal.
In light of these unfolding events, a panel of experts gathered to discuss the potential trajectory of the conflict and the possibility of American involvement.
Jonathan Karl, the chief Washington correspondent for ABC News, along with David Ignatius from The Washington Post, David Sanger, White House correspondent for The New York Times, and Nancy Youssef, a newly appointed national security writer at The Atlantic, contributed insights into the ongoing crisis.
David Sanger outlined the current dynamics of the conflict, indicating that Iran is suffering significantly. He noted that, as of now, the nation has lost a considerable amount of its military capabilities within the first week of fighting. Estimates suggest that Iran has roughly a thousand long-range missiles left, a stark reduction from its previous arsenal.
The losses extend beyond munitions; Iran has seen a substantial number of its nuclear scientists and military leaders from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps diminish as a result of targeted attacks. Notably, the Natanz nuclear enrichment plant, a facility crucial for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, has also been compromised.
Sanger emphasized that the coming weeks will be pivotal in determining whether the Fordow site, secured deep within a mountain, can be effectively struck. This facility’s construction was a direct response to previous air attacks, designed to withstand bombardments.
When discussing the timing of potential Israeli strikes, David Ignatius raised the issue of President Donald Trump’s response, suggesting that the Israelis may be under pressure to act swiftly before the U.S. administration changes its approach to negotiations concerning Iran.
The urgency from the Israeli perspective seems to stem from a concern that President Trump may wish to intervene to facilitate new negotiations regarding the nuclear deal with Iran, which could alter the situation dramatically. Ignatius pointed out the need for Israel to assess the settlement it could accept, alongside the military actions it intends to take in the limited time available.
Jonathan Karl added to the discussion by recounting his conversations with President Trump, noting the president’s initial enthusiasm about Israel’s military accomplishments. In a conversation shortly after the conflict began, Trump expressed satisfaction with Israel’s performance while remaining vague about U.S. involvement.
However, it becomes clear that Trump is navigating a complex landscape where his own supporters might react negatively should the U.S. become embroiled in a prolonged conflict. Many within his base advocate for a non-interventionist foreign policy, and there may be significant resistance to any increased military involvement in the region.
The Pentagon is also grappling with these complexities. Youssef reflected on conversations with officials at Central Command (CENTCOM), revealing a primary focus on protecting U.S. forces stationed in the Middle East. This has led to a redeployment of military assets, including destroyers positioned in the Eastern Mediterranean to safeguard American troops amidst rising tensions.
Officials in the Pentagon are cautious, aware that any direct involvement could escalate risks to U.S. personnel. The varying opinions among military leaders reflect a tension between a more aggressive posture and the necessity to minimize risks to American lives.
General Kurilla, head of Central Command, has expressed strong support for taking decisive actions in response to Iran’s current vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, the strategic calculations involve an assessment of resources, particularly after extensive military operations throughout the year.
With the Israeli Air Force demonstrating successful tactics, it’s likely that the U.S. military is analyzing Iran’s weaknesses to prepare for any further developments. Youssef indicated that the collapse of Iran’s air defenses has shifted the operational calculus significantly, providing Americans options they previously didn’t have.
As the panel continues considering the implications of the conflict, the narrative surrounding Iran’s threat to the U.S. comes to the fore. Jonathan Karl echoed Prime Minister Netanyahu’s argument that Iran poses a direct threat not only to Israel but also to America. Netanyahu’s comments to Karl reflected a calculated effort to frame the conflict as one of mutual concern, utilizing the rhetoric of the MAGA movement to appeal to Trump’s base.
However, the effectiveness of Netanyahu’s message among Trump supporters is questionable. Many followers may be resistant to external pressures on U.S. foreign policy, regardless of the broader geopolitical challenges presented.
Finally, David Sanger delved into the historical context of Iran’s threats against the United States. He noted that Iran’s adversarial stance, which has persisted for over four decades, continues to fuel instability in the region. Sanger clarified that while Iran indeed poses serious challenges to U.S. strategic interests, the situation is further complicated by historical tensions that have evolved since the Iranian revolution in 1979.
As the conflict remains fluid, experts agree that the coming weeks will be crucial, not only for Iran’s political and military future but also for the broader implications surrounding U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
image source from：pbs
