Former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant stated that the Israeli response to Iranian strikes would be lethal, specific, or surprising. In response, General Hossein Salami, the Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, warned that if you make a mistake and attack our targets, whether in the region or in Iran, we will strike you again with painful blows.

These were threats from both sides on the battleground of the Syrian-Lebanese war, where Israel and Iran played a key role in the conflict. When Iran launched two hundred missiles or more at Israel in response to Israeli strikes on Lebanon, it resulted in the death of Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Abbas Nelforushan and the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.

The escalation continues in the region between them without any diplomatic negotiations that could lead to security stability in the Middle East. Iran continues to provide support to factions spread across Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen, and has been, and still is, a strong backbone on which Hamas relies in its military operations against Israel. Despite the fact that the United States, which is a strong ally of Israel in the region, has not targeted any Iranian military sites in Syria and Iraq, and although the U.S. was a significant factor in enabling the Iranian Shiite rule in Baghdad—which led to the division of Iraq and control over oil resources—it is not lost on political analysts that the U.S. may have major interests with Iran. As I mentioned earlier in Article One (the Monroe Doctrine and the Peace Process), U.S. policy is to "show internal disagreement."

 

It is likely that the U.S. has not cut all ties with Iran secretly, especially after Israel has proven over time through its reckless policies in the region and the internal divisions between the right and left, as well as the Haredi groups that oppose the existence of the state of Israel and protest from time to time against Israeli state policies, and the groups of Torah Jews who call for its elimination based on their circulating prophecies.

Thus, the U.S. does not rely heavily on Israel, which is struggling with internal issues and divisions, continually crying out for support from the U.S. Israel cannot engage in a strong confrontation on its own without American support, unlike Iran, which has built its strength and influence independently and extended its reach in Arab territories—a feat Israel has failed to achieve over the past 75 years. It does not appear that the U.S. intends any serious hostility against Iran.

One of the most notable points to consider is the fact that many of the Iranian strikes that have been announced targeted non-populated areas or industrial zones far from residential clusters. Despite the limited damage caused by these strikes, no human casualties were reported. Were these strikes merely a warning message to Israel indicating that it is capable of retaliation, or are they propaganda to demonstrate military strength and bolster Iranian-American ties?

A similar scene unfolded previously when the U.S. and Israel carried out several attacks on Iran, often broadcasted as strikes against nuclear reactors, which were primarily aimed at facilities related to uranium enrichment or military nuclear development, rather than energy-producing nuclear reactors like those found in other countries, which have no direct connection to nuclear weapons development. This raises a question reminiscent of the Iraq War, when the U.S. panicked over the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, leading the American administration to declare war with its allies, transforming Iraq into a humanitarian disaster.

The result was that Iraq was found to be devoid of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Although Britain provided documents proving that the U.S. had prior knowledge of the non-existence of any nuclear weapons in Iraq, it did not retract its decision regarding the war. Comparing its earlier decision—driven by fears regarding the existence of nuclear weapons in Iraq—to its current policy concerning Iran, which has boldly and boastfully declared its uranium enrichment for constructing a military nuclear program in the future, we see a stark contrast. We have not witnessed any international coalition led by the U.S. to launch a military attack on Iran, and even the strikes previously conducted by the U.S. did not target fortified or underground facilities, despite ongoing verification by international oversight and available intelligence.
 

Is Iran the future alternative to Israel?  
America and Islam  

The Middle East has always been the supreme ambition that the U.S. seeks to impose its military, political, and economic control over. Given the region's geographical significance to the U.S., it has made substantial efforts to eliminate imperialist competitors in the East, such as Britain, and has positioned itself as a unipolar power with no competitors on all fronts, except for an ideological competitor whose belief system poses a significant threat to its existence, particularly in the Middle East. It is well known that the Middle East is a predominantly Sunni Arab and Islamic region, where the concept of jihad encompasses the defense of land and religion and the establishment of Islamic governance. 

For America, the vast majority of Muslims in the Middle East, who are a source of concern and unrest, pose a significant challenge. These people stand as obstacles to American ambitions regarding their resources and could one day emerge as strong competitors threatening the throne of American unipolarity in the world. It is known that one of the tenets of Islam is that it “rules and is not ruled.” This religion, which encompasses laws and principles aimed at power, influence, and ongoing struggle until it reaches the peak of strength, serves as a looming specter that haunts America, even within its own borders. 

Since divisions manifest in any place or belief, Islam also experiences its own divisions, whether on a collective level or an ideological intellectual level. The points of difference are clearly evident between Iran, which represents the highest authority of the Shiite doctrine, contrasting with the Sunni doctrine, and how both branches pose ongoing concerns for the Iranian regime's clerical authority in the region. The Middle East is predominantly composed of Sunni believers, who are inclined by the tenets of Sunni jihad and thus pose a clear threat to Iranian influence in the region. 

Therefore, we can see the convergence of Iranian and American interests here. If the U.S. has decided or taken a stance that Iran, with its growing power day by day and its clear and declared singular objective—as previously stated by Khamenei, who challenged the Arab world by asserting that his war is a religious war against "the followers of Yazid," referring to the Sunni entity in Arab territories—is likely to be a strong ally for the U.S. in the distant future to ensure control over the Middle East and eliminate those who pose a clear threat to American interests. The U.S. does not intend to destroy Iranian power, especially after witnessing the failure of the Israeli right-wing government politically and militarily in facing challenges that posed genuine threats to Israel's security from Iranian proxies in the region. 

Thus, America silently rejoiced, believing that in the long run, Iran would be the alternative to Israel in the Middle East. 

Levant: Netanya Mordechai