Despite the continuation of the occupation and the non-establishment of a Palestinian state, the process of Israel’s integration into the Middle East, centered on the exclusion of Iran, has been ongoing since the first term of United States President Donald Trump. At this point, the Tel Aviv-Washington duo has preferred to declare war on Iran and violate the prohibition on the use of force for the sake of Israel’s integration. As a month has passed since the war began, the tide is turning in favor of Iran, with the US-Israel duo moving away from their ultimate goals and trying to shape Iran and the current regime according to their own interests.
Trump’s withdrawal from the Comprehensive Joint Plan of Action, known as the Iran Nuclear Agreement, signed in 2015, and Iran’s increasing diplomatic isolation were not sufficient for Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. By waging war on Iran, regime change in the country has been targeted. Iran is intended to be removed from being a threat within the framework of the “new Middle East paradigm.” In other words, it is aimed to “moderate” Iran and integrate it into the region within the framework of the new paradigm. It is aimed to remove the threat to the interests of the USA and Israel.
The attacks by the USA and Israel on Iran have opened up discussions and raised questions on many aspects of international law and international politics. It has given rise to theories that a new system is being formed. The attacks that began on February 28 are a violation of the prohibition on the use of force in the United Nations (UN) Charter. Previously, Trump violated the provision of the principle by threatening Iran with his statements. Iran, on the other hand, has responded to the attacks by targeting Israel and various locations in Gulf countries. It states that the attacks in question are not a violation of the prohibition on the use of force but fall within the right to self-defense as specified in Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Especially Iran’s retaliation by targeting Gulf countries and the Houthis in Yemen attacking Israel, in response to which Israel is conducting attacks on Lebanon, increases the likelihood of a regional war. Another target of Israeli aggression is Lebanon; the destruction and displacement of people similar to that in Gaza are condemned by international entities. Especially UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres rejects this policy of Israel with his statements. In its response to Hezbollah’s attacks in southern Lebanon, Tel Aviv once again violates proportionality, revealing its familiar policy. Another actor, opposing Israel’s policies and defined as Iran’s proxy force, is being targeted for elimination. With Israel’s possible occupation of southern Lebanon, the political impasse and regional instability will deepen. In this context, various proposals are being put forward to reduce tension and conflict. For example, French President Emmanuel Macron stated that the reoccupation of Lebanon would be unacceptable, while also indicating that Lebanon should recognize Israel thru the peace plan he prepared.
Trump’s plan for Israel to isolate Iran and integrate it into the Middle East is evolving into a war, expanding its reach across the region. In this context, it should be remembered that the Saudi Arabian administration holds a key position. One of the most important steps in the “new Middle East” goals of Netanyahu and Trump is the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Before the war, there were informal discussions between the parties. In the current period, it can be said that Riyadh is approaching the policy of recognizing Israel with even more caution. On the other hand, Iran’s targeting of American bases and energy facilities within Saudi Arabia’s borders validates Riyadh’s perception of the threat from Iran and its rhetoric. The founding purpose and the policies being implemented by the Gulf Cooperation Council can be recalled.
Iran’s attacks on American bases and energy facilities in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries have brought the deficiencies in defense to the forefront. The American “protective umbrella” and the investments made in this direction have been called into question regarding their usefulness in light of Iran’s attacks. In this context, it is possible to express that Iran is trying to exploit the predicament of the Gulf countries to its own advantage. Although Iran targets energy infrastructures and American bases in the Gulf countries, it notes that a new security and military alliance can be established in the Middle East, and the regional unity that will form in this direction will exclude the USA and Israel. By specifically calling on the Gulf countries, this new alliance system will ensure that countries take responsibility for their own security and, therefore, will not need external solutions or protection from non-regional countries for their security.
Netanyahu, who is often seen as the leader who gets along best with Trump, has largely the same political and military objectives for the Middle East. As mentioned above, Trump’s Century Plan was implemented as a unilateral fait accompli, with Israel’s views taken into account while Palestine’s views were disregarded. Instead of Palestine, opposition to Iran has taken center stage. Some Gulf countries have adhered to the plan and its content, normalizing their relations with Israel by signing the Abraham Accords.
Another prominent feature of the war is the expression of different narratives and claims between the parties, which maintains a certain level of uncertainty in the process. So much so that information transfer has turned into a competition of discourse and a race to influence public opinion.
The failure of the United States and Israel to achieve their objectives in this war has led to the adoption of different goals and strategies. For example, since the beginning of the war, a change in Israel’s military strategy has been observed: “it has shifted from encirclement to systematic destruction.” “Iran has also intensified its attacks, showing the world public that it will protect its regime at all costs.” While it is unlikely that the parties will approach negotiations and talks in this sense, they are trying to impose their conditions and pursue their agendas thru attacks.
Especially with the increasing pressure on Iran to accept ceasefire conditions, the war has somewhat turned into a war of attrition. Recently, it has been indicated that the US might invade Iran, and the possibility of an American landing on Hark Island has been emphasized. Although the island has a small surface area, a significant portion of Iran’s oil exports is conducted from this island. In fact, the US has taken a step in this direction and put Iran’s reaction to the test. In mid-March, Trump announced that military facilities on the island had been targeted and completely destroyed. In this context, the noteworthy point is that the oil facilities on the island were not targeted. Trump has pointed out that the facilities in question were deliberately not attacked.
Therefore, the goal has now shifted from deterrence to a war of attrition and extracting as many concessions as possible from the other side. Every day, both sides announce and share with the public that they will attack a new target. The war is being continued by attacking increasingly diverse targets every day. However, it is also claimed that negotiations are ongoing. Calls for a ceasefire are being made at various times. Therefore, it is considered necessary to address the 15-point ceasefire proposal from the United States and the 5-point conditions put forth by Tehran in response.
Among the 15 articles presented to the press, the complete elimination of Iran’s current nuclear capacity, which is cited as the main cause of the war, is included. It includes various clauses that the Tehran administration would not accept, such as abandoning its regional proxy power strategy, limiting the range and capacity of its missile program, and restricting Iran’s future missile use to only legitimate defense. Additionally, it is demanded that the Strait of Hormuz remain open, and it is stated that the International Atomic Energy Agency should have full access, transparency, and authority for inspections at relevant facilities in Iran. Trump, who has criticized the Iran Nuclear Agreement since the day it was signed, wants to get Iran to accept a different and more comprehensive text than the 2015 agreement, as the aforementioned provisions indicate. Especially in the regulations regarding Iran’s ballistic missiles, Trump insists.
Iran, on the other hand, rejected Washington’s 15-point ceasefire plan and put forward its own conditions consisting of 5 points. Ending attacks and assassinations against key figures of the regime is among the conditions. The payment of compensation, the assurance that the war will not restart, and the cessation of attacks on all fronts, including its allies in the region, as well as the recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, are being demanded.
It has been noted that during the period when ceasefire attempts were implied, an American ground operation targeting Hark Island was also mentioned. The occupation of Hark Island by the US, which could be considered one of the potential responses from Tel Aviv-Washington to Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, could expand and intensify Iran’s attacks. It could target energy, oil, and even water supply systems, which are of crucial importance in the Gulf countries. It is particularly thot that the next target will be the seawater desalination plants used by the Gulf countries. Additionally, there are comments suggesting that Iran might also turn its attention to the Red Sea in response to the intervention in Hark Island.
In conclusion, Netanyahu continues to provide security-focused justifications for the attacks on anti-Israel states and political structures in the region, as the Tel Aviv administrations have done since the 1980s. In 1981, the “logic” or justification used for the attack on Iraq’s Osirak Nuclear Reactor, which was still under construction, is being similarly presented today against Iran. Netanyahu periodically claims that Iran has developed sufficient enriched uranium and could develop nuclear weapons at any moment. Today, the aforementioned claim has found an opportunity to be applied in war. The same understanding is seen in the American administrations. The claims made by the George W. Bush administration against Iraq in 2003 are now being made against Iran. For example, like Bush, Trump also claims that Iran would use nuclear weapons without hesitation if it possessed them. Therefore, according to Trump, if a war had not been waged against Iran, the entire world would have been under threat.
When the war is evaluated within the framework of the goals and strategies of the USA and Israel, it is seen that the expected developments did not occur. In the current period, where the focus is on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, Iran’s hand is stronger. However, before the war began, the Netanyahu-Trump duo had indicated thru various statements that the Iranian people would rise up and overthrow the mullah regime alongside the war. These statements are not limited to today. In the past, especially Netanyahu has called for an uprising by addressing the Iranian people. From Iran’s perspective, however, war has become a matter of life and death. The Tehran administration, which responded with all its resources and capabilities, has stood by the regime despite losing important figures of the clerical regime, such as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Ali Larijani, due to the attack. The majority of the Iranian people, as they did before, did not heed the calls of the Netanyahu-Trump duo and the Iranian diaspora, and did not choose to revolt. On the other hand, it is also believed that various reform steps will be taken if the war ends. In this context, Palestine’s position on the agenda is declining despite the violation of the ceasefire by Israel’s attacks in Gaza and the terror of Jewish settlers in the West Bank. Due to Israel’s expansionism, the prohibition on the use of force and violations of international humanitarian law continue.
