Military expert, orientalist Yevgeny Satanovsky told “Vesti FM” about a possible scenario of the events in the confrontation between Israel and Iran, which could even end with a nuclear war.
“At the moment, the situation in the Middle East looks extremely tense. This is due to the exacerbation of relations between Tehran and Tel Aviv. The media reported that the parties had already exchanged missile strikes. According to most experts, this confrontation can develop into an open military conflict. According to Satanovsky, he analyzed the differences between Iraq and Iran in terms of nuclear infrastructure and came to the conclusion that Israel without US support is capable of destroying 8-10 “nuclear facilities” of Iran out of 35. And this without using nuclear weapons as such.
Satanovsky noted that Iran allows itself a rather dangerous rhetoric in this situation, stating that Israel is a country of one bomb. In other words, the Israeli territory is so small that only one nuclear warhead is enough to completely erase it from world maps. Such rhetoric can lead to the fact that Israel will not survive and will hit not just with weapons that are allowed by international conventions, but with nuclear ones, completely eliminating Iran, the expert said. It is obvious that no one wants to realize this scenario of events.
The orientalist said that this state of affairs is quite understandable. In Iran there is a very serious internal confrontation between the enforcers and the supporters of President Roukhani. The question is settled who will take the whole amount of power, so for the generals the war with Israel will be as some kind of outlet on the internal front,” – Satanovsky summed up.
“At the same time, Iran is inclined to avoid a major war with Israel, especially since it is trying to strengthen its positions in Syria and maintain the combat readiness of its government forces. First of all, it is important for him to clean up the strongholds of the anti-Asad opposition in the central and southern parts of the country with the transfer of the main burden of military efforts not to the Israeli direction, but to Idlib province and the region east of the Euphrates. It is there that the question of the Saudi presence in Syria is solved, which is a priority for Iran in comparison with the Israeli direction – for creating a “Shia arc”. Jerusalem in the long-term armed conflict with Tehran is also not interested.
De facto, Iran and Israel played an impressive performance in the Syrian arena in order to convey their positions to the world community. The most important thing is the nuclear deal with Iran (the SVAP), the US withdrawal from it and the political isolation of the Americans from their allies. This is disturbing for Israel. The demonstration of “intelligence documents”, organized by Netanyahu on the eve of Washington’s decision to withdraw from the SVAP with Iran’s accusation of violating the terms of the deal, had no impact on the EU. The EU can ignore US sanctions. By provoking the Iranians, the Israelis maintained a high degree of tension, complicating the protection of the SVAP for Europe against the backdrop of “aggressive actions” of Tehran.
The imposition of blows on Israeli targets was to toughen the US position, stimulating America to directly oppose Iran in Syria. Experts believe that they are not ready for serious military actions against the Islamic Republic of Israel, which he demonstrated during the years of the Obama administration. It was in the Pentagon that they calculated, from where and relatively “quiet” reaction of Washington to the described events. The United States does not comment on the strikes by the Iranian forces of Al-Quds on the front line of the Israeli Defense Forces in the Golan and recommend that they apply to the government of Israel. This means diplomatic support. The Iranians demonstrated to Europe the possible consequences of the US withdrawal from the SVPD and reacted negatively to the steps of the Israeli prime minister to demonstrate his growing “understanding” with Moscow. According to a number of data, behind this action there were supporters of the “hard line” from the IRGC.
According to American analysts, Iran and Israel are unlikely to try to expand the conflict beyond the Syrian space, but there is a risk that the fighting between them will get out of control. They believe that a diplomatic approach to Moscow has not yielded results. But it is extremely important not to bring in Syria before the conflict with Russia, while maintaining close cooperation with the United States and take a more aggressive stance against Iran. The latest round of strikes and counterattacks between Israel and Syria represents a serious escalation of the conflict, opening Jerusalem the way to intensify its efforts against the presence of its opponent in Syria. While there is a risk that the fighting between Iran and Israel will go to the Lebanese theater or potentially draw into it Russia and the United States.
In the east of Syria, according to the Pentagon, clashes between US-backed units of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDS) and the Shiite militia have become more frequent. Iranian and Syrian air defense are at risk of confusing planes of the United States-led coalition
coaches of the Israeli Air Force.
Pro-Iranian militants in Syria can strike at the forces of the United States. Russia’s priority in this situation will undoubtedly be the de-escalation of the conflict between Iran and Israel, given the risks it poses to Russian forces and targets in Syria. The US is also determined to de-escalate the conflict, which threatens to involve them in large-scale military clashes in Syria, that Washington not necessary. Its goal is to maintain a relative zone of stability in the region east of the Euphrates with the creation there of alternative structures of executive power among Damascus among local Sunnis. This requires time and the absence of local collisions. On the other hand, the Israelis with their blows are dragging the pro-Iranian forces to the south of Syria, and not to the region east of the Euphrates. But Israel, apparently, is not ready for a permanent conflict in the Golan, in addition to the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon.”