by Pantelis Savvidis
1. Israel's first mistake is that, after October 7, it did not use the moral advantage it had to pursue a solution to the Palestinian issue. Instead, it chose the path of confrontation and has entered, as a state, into a long process of discredit, with consequences for both its security and the lives of its citizens.
2. The second mistake is that it planned an attack on Iran without a clear and realistic goal. Under the previous spiritual leader, whom Israel assassinated, Iran could have come very close to acquiring a nuclear weapon, but without necessarily seeking to build one. With the current leader, the religious restrictions that the previous one had set seem to be lifted. However, Iran is still thinking very seriously about whether it is in its interest to seek to acquire a nuclear weapon, as such a development could lead other, competitive, regional powers to the same direction. It is not certain that this serves its interests. Israel would certainly have made this elementary analysis. Therefore, the question arises: why this obsession with the nuclear issue, especially since an agreement was reached under the Obama administration? The complete elimination of the nuclear threat from Iran was an untenable goal from the beginning.
3. Another mistaken goal of Israel in the war is its obsession, even today, with overthrowing the regime. Regimes are not overthrown when a country is in a state of war. Even die-hard opponents of the Iranian regime rushed to support their state, even from abroad. It is hard to believe that such obvious facts escape people who run services like Mossad.
- The result of all this is that Israel has also led Trump into the war, at a time when he now seems to be considering withdrawing. Israel cannot wage war against Iran alone, and especially for an unattainable goal, such as regime change. The argument it presents to the US, in the event that they abandon it, is the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons. However, if Israel gets to the point of considering such an option, it is certain that it will face threats not only from regional powers but also from broader international factors.
- Perhaps the worst outcome for Israel is that the balance of power in Congress is already shifting against it. Both in American society and at the level of political leadership, there is now a clear reluctance to continue supporting Israel.
- This development also has consequences for Greece. Many of Greece's access to decision-making centers in the US were made with the help of Israel. However, Greece benefited - and continues to benefit - from the existence of a geopolitically displaced Iran. The weakening of Iran benefits Turkey. Of course, a secular Iran would be preferable, but such a prospect is not currently visible. The column's assessment is that, after the war, the regime itself will seek to reform.
7. Finally, the column considers that the Turkey-Israel confrontation belongs more to the realm of philology. Neither country has an interest in such a rupture. In the event, however, that it takes place, Turkey first seeks to have cleared up the situation with the non-existent Athens. This is where the related threats stem from. In the past, as Turkey was preparing to get involved in the Middle Eastern quagmire, it sought and achieved the well-known Friendship Pact, which Athens hastened to sign.
Israel is emerging from the continuous recent wars weakened and morally wounded. It has formed new balances that work against it. Its mistakes have been tragic and their effects will be felt throughout the region.
Source https://www.anixneuseis.gr
Photo by Rudi Weissenstein – [1]see also: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1247313, https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/ - THE David Ben Gurion declares the independence of Israel on May 14, 1948, under the image of Theodor Herzl visionary of the modern Jewish state
