Israel has not learned from Iraq’s training The conflict between Israel and Iran

Tel Aviv’s decision to start a new war against Iran on June 13 is a disaster. No one will benefit, including the Israeli government, and many will suffer. The exchange of fire has already caused at least 80 people killed in Iran and 10 in Israel.

It is tragically clear that the teaching of the past failed military adventurism in the region has been completely ignored.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu War will be called “preventive”, which aims to prevent Tehran from developing its nuclear weapons. In doing so, he has repeated the strategic mistake of the last two politicians to launch a possible “preventive” attack in the region, US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

As Israeli jet airplanes and rockets stretch over the Middle East sky and made their deadly strikes against Iran’s military sites and military leaders, they immediately made the world a much more dangerous place. Like the US-British invasion of Iraq, this unprovied attack is intended to provide more instability to the already volatile region.

Netanyahu claimed that attacks were meant to destroy Iran’s nuclear opportunities. So far, the Israeli army has hit three nuclear equipment – Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow, causing various damage. However, these strikes are unlikely to actually stop Iran’s nuclear program, and the Israeli Prime Minister knows it.

The Iranian authorities have deliberately built a Natanz site deep underground so that it is impermeable to everyone except the strongest bunker balls. Tel Aviv lacks the ability to permanently destroy it because it has no massive ammunition penetration or massive ammunition air explosion balls produced by the United States.

Washington has long refused to provide them even in the management of US President Donald Trump, who has been Israeli officials and has sought to protect them from sanctions on their war crimes in the Gaza Strip. Trump’s team has recently indicated Again, it will not deliver these weapons in Tel Aviv.

It is not clear from the US official reactions after the attack on the extent to which Washington was informed. The US Department of State originally demarcated the United States from initial attacks, denoting them “unilateral” Israeli operation. Shortly afterwards, Trump claimed that he was fully informed.

The extent of the US involvement and approval is still the main issue, but it immediately ended the hope that its intensive diplomacy with Tehran in recent weeks will create a new deal as a short -term victory for Netanyahu.

But further action against Iran seems to depend on whether the US would come to the conflict. This is a huge gambling of Tel Aviv, taking into account the number of US intervention critics among the main rows of Trump advisers. The US president himself has tried to make the US intervention turn into the main part of his inheritance.

Israel’s actions are already damaging Trump to other interests by raising global oil prices up and complicating his relationship with the Gulf countries, which have a lot to lose if the conflict disrupts sending through the Strait of the Hormuz.

If Israel looks like it wins, Trump will undoubtedly claim it as its victory. But if the Netanyahu strategy is increasingly dependent on attempts to pull Washington in another Middle East war, he may be good at pretending to him.

In the current situation, unless Israel decides to break international norms and use nuclear weapons, further strategic achievements in Iran would indeed depend on the US.

Netanyahu’s second target is the Iranian regime to overthrow, also seems inaccessible.

Several oldest military commanders have been killed in targeted attacks, while Tel Aviv has openly called on Iran’s people to stand up against their government. But Israel’s unilateral aggression is likely to cause much more anger at Tel Aviv Iranians than it will be against their own government, no matter how democratic it is.

In fact, the Iranian regime’s allegations that a nuclear bomb is needed against Israeli aggression is now more logical for those who have doubted it in the domestic market. And in other regional countries where Tehran’s interests had resigned, Netanyahu’s actions risk inhaling new life in these alliances.

But even if Israel manages to destabilize Tehran, it will not bring regional peace. This is a lesson that was needed to learn from Saddam Hussein’s fall in Iraq. The collapse of the Iraqi state subsequently led to a significant increase in extremism and eventually the establishment of ISIL (ISIS), which terrorized so much in the region of 2010.

Israel is not able to introduce a smooth energy transfer to a more diverse mode in Tehran. The population of Iran to try to do so is out of the question, given that both countries have no limit. US support for such efforts is also difficult to imagine in Trump’s administration, as it will certainly increase the risk of attacks in the US.

In other words, Netanyahu attacks can lead to short -term tactical benefits to Israel, delaying Iran’s nuclear ambitions and hindering talks with the US, but they promise a long -term strategic disaster.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author himself and do not always reflect the position of Al Jazeera’s editorial staff.