(by Massimiliano D'Elia) Iran is wounded and according to many analysts there is a high probability that revenge is around the corner. Too much the American affront in killing General Soleimani, he was a first-level strategist, who became a national symbol in the fight against the West. What kind of war could it be? Surely it will never be possible to reach a conflict of a traditional type, the difference between the two armies is too much. Iran will continue its "hybrid" war of attrition in territories far from the homeland, see theaters in Syria and Iraq, with a good chance that it can spread to the rest of the world.
Iran has a wide range of goals. There are US troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and elsewhere, and US diplomats and businesses scattered across the Middle East. The American ally par excellence in the region, Saudi Arabia has recently undergone bombing with Iranian drones to its oil wells, it is not certain that this type of attack can be repeated. Israel also risks a lot from escalation. Iran is able to employ various militias, including Hezbollah. It could also hit the United States with cyber attacks. Another option for Iran is to accelerate the break from the 2015 nuclear deal and increase military nuclear production. Then there is the Iraq chapter, where Tehran has enormous influence and could prompt the Pentagon to withdraw its 5.000 troops if (partly under pressure from Iran) the Iraqi government formally requests it. The United States may also be forced to bring back its diplomats if the Iraqi government proves that it is unable (unwilling) to protect the US embassy complex in Baghdad.
The result would be an increasingly Iranian (Shiite) traction Iraq with the possibility of providing terrorists with a vast territory where to lay their own strategic base from which to launch attacks on the western world.
The killing of Soleimani, however, according to American statements, was necessary for his bloody actions in the past that saw many Americans die. But what prompted Trump to launch the operation is Soleimani's plan for future attacks with a very high media impact. The airstrike was preventive, as US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said yesterday, the Iranian general was planning new and imminent attacks. Regarding doubts about the legality of the operation, the Trump administration argues that there was self-defense under international law.
The American strategy towards Iran under Donald Trump's administration has been controversial from the start. The starting point was Trump's rejection of the 2015 nuclear deal. Trump withdrew the United States from the deal, imposing new and stricter sanctions on Iran, hoping to cause a radical change in Tehran's behavior or even the fall of the regime.
Economically exhausted Iran has responded militarily - against oil tankers, Saudi refineries, US personnel and the US embassy in Baghdad. Trump responded by hitting a symbol of Iran on General Soleimani, proving to the world that he is capable of annihilating any threat to the United States in any part of the globe.
It is not clear, however, why Trump has done so now, given the many US vulnerabilities in the region and because Americans need to commit so many resources to counter the Russian threat in Europe and the still open challenges with North Korea and China. in Asia.
It would be unwise for the United States to favor a dangerous and costly escalation with Iran. It would be better to attempt diplomatic initiatives to temper the spirits, perhaps by trying to create new constraints on Iranian nuclear and missile programs in exchange for a certain reduction in sanctions.
A similar initiative, albeit belated, should have been launched months ago to provide an alternative to the strong tensions underway. Now, it may be too late, as Iran has promised retaliation due to public pressure. Iranian leaders could, however, be open to a truce because, in case of defeat, they could see the Islamic revolution itself in some way at risk.