Former Ambassador to Iran Hadžikadunić analyzes the possibilities of warring parties in the Middle East

(Patria) - Former Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Iran and Malaysia Prof. Dr. Emir Hadžikadunić, Sarajevo School of Science and Technology (SSST), was the keynote speaker at today's ANI session "Krug 99" on the topic "American-Israeli War with Iran: What it is and how it can end".

We present Professor Hadžikadunić's presentation in its entirety:

The latest escalation of conflict in the Middle East between the United States and Israel, on one hand, and the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other, is not a war of the American people. Most Americans, prior to the unprovoked American-Israeli attack on Iran, or rather the sudden attack launched in the midst of diplomatic negotiations, did not support such military action.

Support was at a level of only 20%, and among Democratic Party members, only 6%. Even after the outbreak of aggression, most Americans, according to polls, do not support this war. Furthermore, the American president does not have the consent of Congress to launch military action.

This is not an Iranian war either. The Iranian government did not want it, and certainly not the Iranian people. The Iranian government was involved in negotiations with the American side on the Iranian nuclear program. According to testimonies from the Omani side, as a mediator in the talks, the parties were close to an agreement, which confirms that Iran was interested in both dialogue and an agreement. Iran has largely behaved as a rational actor, aware that the alternative to reaching an agreement is a possible war, which they, by all accounts, wanted to avoid.

This is not an Arab war either. The Arab Gulf monarchies, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, and other Middle Eastern countries, are caught between two fires and, unprovoked, suffer economic and security damage due to the presence of American military bases on their soil. Precisely because of this presence, they become potential targets in a conflict they did not initiate and do not want. The war began in the holy Muslim month of Ramadan, which once again shows that the American administration has little regard even for its Muslim partners and allies in the Middle East, who in such circumstances bear the first consequences of regional escalation.

This is not a war for Iranian democracy either. The history of modern international relations shows that democracy rarely comes as a result of external military intervention. On the contrary, such interventions often lead to the destabilization of states, deepening internal divisions, sectarian or civil war. The experiences of Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan show that wars waged under the banner of democratization mostly produce long-term instability, institutional collapse, and humanitarian disasters.

If we know what this conflict is not, the question arises: what is it actually?

In a deeply cynical logic of modern conflicts, this is Israel's war to preserve absolute regional supremacy, waged to the last American dollar. At its core lies the long-term security doctrine of the "Iron Wall." Its basic assumption remains unchanged: Israel's security grows proportionally to the insecurity of its surroundings. At the same time, it is also the war of the egocentric Donald Trump for political glory, which he believes he can achieve by overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran, something no American president has succeeded in doing in a generational struggle from Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton..., in a long-standing, generational conflict with Iran.

Essentially, the only operational axis in the region remains the personalized axis of Donald Trump-Benjamin Netanyahu. The intensity of their political-military coordination has reached an unprecedented level in the history of relations, and seven meetings in one year confirm the deep and continuous cooperation that resulted in this attack.

This is also a war of the Iranian diaspora, waged to the last Iranian Protestant in Iran, while their ambitions and mobilization are used as a tool in international strategic games.

Fundamentally, this conflict is not a matter of rights, democracy, or security, but a conflict of interests, egocentrism, and regional ambitions, which are paid for with the lives of ordinary people, economic destruction, and lead to regional and global instability.

What is the American end game in this conflict?

The Islamic Republic of Iran has been a generational issue for all American administrations since 1979. The history of American-Iranian relations is a history of violence and missed opportunities. Before the advent of Trump, administrations from Carter, through Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, etc., tried to isolate Iran, imposed sanctions, applied containment policy, threatened with force, but occasionally negotiated and found common interests, for example in the early 1990s in Iraq or in the late 1990s and early 2000s in Afghanistan.

Only the Reagan administration engaged in a brief naval military confrontation with Iran at the end of the Iran-Iraq War. However, Trump surpassed all previous strategies. His or the American end-game should be viewed on three levels: personal, operational, and strategic. On a personal level, it is Donald Trump's egocentric war for political glory that no one before him has achieved. At the same time, Trump must politically repay hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from pro-Israeli lobbying billionaires. Behind his ego lie the operational goals of the United States, the decapitation of Iranian military and political leadership, and the destruction of Iran's defense capabilities. The strategic goal of the highest order is the overthrow of the Iranian regime. Alternatively, one can speak of changing the behavior of the Islamic Republic on the model of Venezuela. Trump, at least rhetorically, is not overly impressed by the Iranian opposition in the diaspora, similar to the case of Venezuela.

What is the end game of official Tel Aviv in this conflict?

Israel is on a mission to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran and install a regime subordinate to it, such as the one led by the son of Reza Pahlavi. This is a war it is prepared to wage to the last American dollar, and then to the last Iranian opposition member. This mission fits into a broader strategy of regional hegemony. It implies absolute military supremacy of Israel over all its closer and farther neighbors, as well as the freedom to act militarily against any point of resistance that opposes the occupation of Palestine or Israel's regional dominance. In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, these were Egypt, Syria, or Jordan. Since the 1980s, Israel has been acting offensively against Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, non-state actors such as the PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah, and today directly against Iran.

Does this have anything to do with the idea of "Greater Israel"?

Israel's mission is so aggressive that today it also takes on its biblical version or vision of creating "Greater Israel." Israeli right-wingers speak more freely about this idea, and in a shocking interview with Tucker Carlson, it was confirmed by the American ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, who is also an evangelical preacher and a strong supporter of Greater Israel policy. Israel's regional hegemony has its "Iron Wall" doctrine, which was developed in its original form by Ze'ev Jabotinsky in 1923, before the declaration of Israeli independence. It primarily concerned the local, indigenous Palestinian population. As Jabotinsky wrote at the time: Zionist colonization must "develop only under the protection of a force independent of the indigenous population, behind an iron wall that the indigenous population cannot break through."

Its modern version could read: "Zionist colonization must develop only under the protection of a force independent of neighboring regional enemy states, behind an iron wall that regional enemies cannot break through."

What are Iran's calculations? What is the definition of an Iranian victory, if it is even possible? The Iranian people and state are already paying the highest price for this conflict. Their casualties number in the hundreds every day. Iran is waging an existential war against the most powerful world power and the most powerful regional state, both nuclear powers. It is a war for mere survival. Such wars are inherently unpredictable and extremely dangerous. In Iran's case, this is further shaped by a strong tradition of martyrdom and the cult of sacrifice, deeply rooted in Shiite tradition. In such circumstances, the definition of victory becomes minimalist: the survival of the state and the survival of the political system. Iran is currently defending itself with asymmetric attacks with missiles and drones, spreading and escalating the conflict regionally, and even globally. The goal of such a strategy is simple: to increase the cost of war for all involved actors, primarily for the United States, to a point where the costs become politically and strategically unbearable, especially for Donald Trump.

For Tehran, a strategic victory would mean inflicting enough serious, asymmetric damage on Israel and the United States to deter a third wave of aggression in the event of a ceasefire. In other words, the goal is not to defeat the opponent in a conventional sense, but to restore deterrence. Whether Iran will succeed in this remains to be seen.

What does prolonging the war with Iran bring us?

Prolonging the war also raises the question of a US ground invasion, which is unpopular among Americans, but also the question of a new Iranian defense doctrine. If the "forward defense" doctrine does not fulfill its purpose, if Iran's missile systems are not capable enough to deter a new American-Israeli aggression, Iran could resort to the option of nuclear deterrence, following the North Korean model.

This issue becomes even more significant because Iran's nuclear program, since the end of the twelve-day war last year, has been practically in the dark, without access for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency.