An attack on Iran could lead to a protracted conflict in the region. What the media is writing
- Новости
- World
- An attack on Iran could lead to a protracted conflict in the region. What the media is writing
On February 20, US President Donald Trump announced that he would allow the use of limited strikes against Iran in order to force the country's leadership to abandon uranium enrichment and conclude a nuclear deal. The Western press notes that despite the negotiating efforts of the American side, there is a major build-up of the US armed forces in the Middle East region, indicating preparations for a prolonged conflict. What foreign media write about the prospects of strikes on Iran is in the Izvestia article.
Bloomberg: threats against Iran may turn against Trump
US President Donald Trump has said he is considering limited military strikes to force Iran to sign a new nuclear deal, but the bombing could backfire and provoke a new conflict destabilizing the Middle East. The Pentagon has organized a large-scale deployment of troops in the region, including aircraft carriers, fighter jets and tanker aircraft, which allows for both limited and expanded operations against Iran.
Bloomberg
At the same time, Trump and other administration officials have publicly given contradictory testimony about what they really want from the new agreement with Tehran. And Iran experts say bombing the country in the midst of negotiations could derail the deal and trigger a deadly cycle of retaliatory measures.
Trump has shown a preference for rapid military operations, such as short-term bombing in Yemen, Syria and Nigeria, as well as a raid to capture Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. But an attack on Iran could provoke retaliatory actions that would draw the United States into a protracted conflict. Becca Wasser, head of defense at Bloomberg Economics, notes that historically, Tehran has acted contrary to U.S. assumptions and limited strikes have not always gone as planned.
The Wall Street Journal: Trump will have to choose between a deal and a war
US President Donald Trump has found himself at a crossroads: conclude a nuclear deal with Iran or start a war with hard-to-control consequences for the United States and the Middle East. Trump himself said he would have preferred an agreement, but he was building up the American presence in the Middle East region, gathering the largest concentration of air forces since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The Wall Street Journal
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday [February 20] to slap Trump's tariffs could make an American attack on Iran more likely, said Wilbur Ross, who was commerce secretary during Trump's first term. "I don't think he can accept this loss and then look like he's retreating from Iran," he said.
Iran has vowed to respond to any U.S. attack by sinking American ships, attacking U.S. troops in the region, and closing the Strait of Hormuz, essential for global oil trade, which has worried the Gulf states. Even if the war leads to the overthrow of Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei, the consequences will be unpredictable. Many analysts believe that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will take control of the country, which will be even more difficult to negotiate with.
Reuters: Iran and the United States are sliding towards conflict
Israel and the Gulf states consider a conflict between the United States and Iran more likely than a settlement, since Washington has provided the largest military presence in the region since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Israel believes that the United States and Iran have reached an impasse and is preparing for a joint operation with American troops, although there is no decision on the operation yet.
Reuters
Some regional officials say Tehran has dangerously miscalculated by insisting on concessions, while US President Donald Trump is stymied by his own military buildup — he cannot reduce it without losing face unless Iran makes firm promises to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
Alan Eyre, a former American diplomat and Iran specialist, believes that the parties will not step back from their "red lines", and Trump cannot pull troops in the Middle East region and then return with a mediocre deal. Two rounds of Iranian-American talks have stalled on key issues, from uranium enrichment to missiles and sanctions relief.
The Guardian: The United States may strike at individuals in Iran
Iran's foreign minister announced the preparation of counter-proposals within days of negotiations on a nuclear deal with the United States this week, while US President Donald Trump said he was allowing the possibility of limited military strikes on Iranian territory.
The Guardian
Two U.S. officials told Reuters that U.S. military planning for Iran is at an advanced stage and options are being considered, including targeting individuals as part of the attack and even changing leadership in Tehran if ordered by Trump.
Trump said on February 19 that Iran has 10-15 days to conclude an agreement, or it will face "very bad consequences." The Iranian Foreign Ministry, after indirect talks with U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner, said that the parties had reached an understanding on "guiding principles," but this did not guarantee a deal, and added that military action would complicate efforts to reach an agreement.
The New York Times: A second war with Iran could be deadlier than the first
The Pentagon is building up the largest military force in the Middle East in recent decades, and President Trump is considering a much larger operation, the goals of which he does not speak publicly. Will Iran's nuclear facilities be targeted again, or will Iran's ballistic missile arsenal also come under attack? Or is Trump's goal to overthrow the government in the Middle East?
The New York Times
Uncertainty about Trump's goals, according to some American officials and experts on the Middle East, could be particularly dangerous, as it could lead the Iranian government to perceive the US-led offensive as a threat to the existence of the state. As a result, Iran may escalate the conflict with the United States and Israel in a way that did not happen during the terrorist attacks last June or after the assassination by the US military of General Qassem Soleimani, head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, in 2020.
According to an expert on Iran from the School of Advanced International Studies. According to Johns Hopkins Vali Nasr, Iran may decide that its restrained reaction to previous US military operations has only provoked new threats, which will force "to increase the costs of war for the United States." If the United States, rather than Israel, launches an attack first, 30-40 thousand American troops stationed at 13 military bases in the Middle East may be at risk. Israel can still take the brunt of the attack, but a prolonged conflict will undermine the country's defenses.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
