Dr. Jamal Harfoush: The expected Israeli strike on Iran will depend on achieving a greater deterrent effect, not a direct reaction

Major General Wassef Erekat: The strike requires preparations and its scenarios depend mainly on the size of American support

Sari Arabi: The Israeli strike is imminent, as preparations are complete, and the responses will continue, but slowly.

Dr. Saad Nimr: The timing of the Israeli strike may be very soon, and its size will determine the development of the course of events in the region

Nihad Abu Ghosh: The response sequence is part of the war of attrition and Israel aims to eliminate the Iranian nuclear project

Tensions are rising in the Middle East with increasing talk of an imminent Israeli strike against Iran, amid questions about its potential repercussions on the entire region, whether the region will enter a series of responses and reactions, or slide into a dangerous regional war.

In separate interviews with “I”, writers, analysts and academics believe that the Israeli response may be designed to achieve a greater deterrent effect than a direct reaction, as the strike is expected to target vital military targets in Iran, and perhaps carry out assassinations. However, they point out that Israel faces logistical and tactical challenges related to carrying out this strike against Iran, but what saves it is cooperation with the United States, which provides intelligence and logistical support, but at the same time seeks to control the situation to avoid the outbreak of a comprehensive regional war. Despite this, it will be forced to enter the war if things slide dangerously and the situation gets out of control.

Precision airstrikes against vital military targets in Iran

Recent developments in the Middle East indicate an escalation of tensions between Israel and Iran, especially after the recent Iranian strike, which came before the Israeli threat to respond, according to Dr. Jamal Harfoush, Professor of Scientific Research Methods and Political Studies at the University of the Academic Research Center in Brazil.

Harfoush believes that the expected Israeli response will depend on achieving a greater deterrent effect, rather than being a mere direct reaction.

The most likely scenario, according to Harfoush, is for Israel to launch precise airstrikes against vital military targets in Iran, such as nuclear facilities and military command and control centers, using fighter jets and long-range missiles, in addition to the possibility of expanding the scope of the response to include sensitive infrastructure, such as Iranian oil refineries and power stations.

In addition, Harfoush expects another scenario to occur, which is a broader regional escalation that includes Israeli strikes against Iran’s allies in the region, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon or Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Iraq, as this escalation aims to cut off military and logistical support for Iran, and reduce its ability to respond through its allies.

In this context, Harfoush points out that Israel may target missile launch sites or weapons depots run by these units, which could lead to an escalation of the conflict to include other countries in the region.

Shock and awe strategy

Harfoush believes that the worst-case scenario is that Israel seeks to adopt a “shock and awe” strategy, by launching large-scale strikes that may reach command centers in Tehran itself or attempts to target Iranian military leaders. However, this step will be fraught with risks, as it may lead to a comprehensive escalation that includes a wide regional war, which may require the intervention of major countries such as Russia or China, whether diplomatically or militarily, to protect their interests in the region.

He warns that the region may enter into a “spiral of increasing escalation,” which is known in political science as a “sequence of action and reaction.” The Iranian strike against Israel opened the door to an Israeli response, and if this response is harsh, Iran may adopt unconventional methods of response, as well as an escalation of the proxy war through Iran’s allies in the region. This may lead to targeting Israeli interests or even the interests of its allies, which requires urgent international intervention to stop the escalation.

Harfoush points out that major countries, such as the United States and Russia, may be forced to intervene diplomatically to avoid the situation sliding into an open, uncontrollable conflict.

Harfoush points out that the Israeli response has become more inevitable after the Iranian strike, as Israel considers any direct Iranian attack an existential threat.

It is believed that Israel is waiting for the right moment to target the Iranian infrastructure in a way that would paralyze its military and nuclear capabilities for a long time, and perhaps seeks through this to change the balance of power in the region in its favor.

US Commitment to Protect and Support Israel

As for American intervention, Harfoush considers it pivotal in this context, as the United States has great interests in the stability of the region, but at the same time it is committed to protecting and supporting its ally Israel, and Washington is likely to provide significant intelligence and logistical support to Israel, including the joint use of American military bases in the Arabian Gulf. However, the United States is trying to exercise restraint and avoid direct military intervention for fear of the situation escalating into a full-scale regional war.

Harfoush believes that Washington may initially move towards diplomatic solutions, by pressuring both sides to stop military operations, but if the situation escalates towards a comprehensive confrontation, the United States may find itself forced to enter the war alongside Israel, especially if American interests or the interests of its allies are targeted.

Gaza may become a secondary arena in the wider conflict

As for the Gaza Strip, Harfoush points to the possibility that Gaza could become a secondary arena in the broader conflict between Israel and Iran, and that Palestinian armed factions could exploit this conflict to target Israel and open a new front, increasing military pressure on Israel. However, Israel may seek to contain the escalation in Gaza through limited military strikes or security operations aimed at preventing the situation from escalating.

However, Harfoush believes that marginalizing Gaza may give Palestinian factions more room for military and political action, which will lead to an escalation of the situation in the Strip and a worsening of the humanitarian and economic crises there, while a popular uprising may erupt in parallel in the West Bank.

The strike requires great preparations and capabilities.

Retired Major General Wassef Erekat, a strategic military and security expert, believes that the possible scenarios for the expected Israeli strike against Iran depend primarily on the extent of American support.

Erekat explains that Israel needs great capabilities to ensure the success of this strike on Iran, including securing aircraft routes and providing accurate security and intelligence information, while Erekat stresses that without American support, it is difficult for Israel to achieve its goals from the potential strike.

Erekat stresses that one of the important questions relates to the parameters of the Israeli strike, as it is still unclear whether there are targets exempt from the attack, such as Iranian nuclear or oil facilities, or whether the option is open to Israel to target any target it chooses.

Possible targets for an Israeli strike

In this context, Erekat points out that what is available to Israel, if it takes into account the American recommendations, is to target sensitive military facilities inside Iran, which could be, for example, the headquarters of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force, or the headquarters of the Iranian army. Likewise, potential targets could include senior leadership figures inside Iran, and one scenario would be to carry out assassinations against prominent Iranian leaders.

Erekat points out that Israel may seek to target sensitive vital targets inside Iran to restore its reputation after the Iranian attack that occurred earlier this month.

Erekat points to the possibility of being drawn into a series of responses and responses to responses between Israel and Iran, as each party may continue to escalate its response more strongly than the previous one, which further complicates the situation. Moreover, the continuation of these painful strikes may lead to a loss of control over the situation and its descent into the unknown, especially if the results of the attacks and the extent of the losses are large.

Direct US military involvement ruled out

Erekat touches on the last meeting held by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which lasted three hours, and did not ask for the ministers’ approval for the strike, as he left the door open regarding the date of its implementation, while Erekat indicates that the matter may be linked to the arrival and preparation of the American “THAAD” defense system.

Erekat points out that the Israeli strike could come before the US presidential elections if preparations are completed.

However, Erekat rules out the direct participation of the US military in the strike against Iran, but he confirms that all US radar and defence systems will be at Israel's service, as the West and the United States consider Israel's defeat in this battle to be their defeat, which is unacceptable to them.

Gaza Strip will remain a major battleground in the war

Regarding Israel's declaration that Gaza is a secondary battlefield in the midst of the escalation, Erekat believes that this description is inaccurate, pointing out that the Strip will remain a primary arena in this war in light of Israel's strategic goal.

According to Erekat, although Israel is now focusing on the northern front, due to the size of the challenges and threats posed by this front, especially in terms of combat preparations and capabilities, the complexities of geography, and the possibility of supply and provision, whether for the army or the Israeli home front, and although it has transferred some military divisions from the Gaza Strip to the northern front, it has kept the killing tools of aircraft and artillery as they were, and has even increased its brutality and commission of massacres and war crimes.

In this regard, Erekat believes that developments on the northern front open the door to multiple possibilities, including the expansion of the scope of fighting and its transformation into a regional war, or perhaps more, which puts it in the spotlight.

Factors behind the delay in the Israeli response

Writer and political analyst Sari Arabi explains that the delay in the Israeli response to Iran is because Israel is carefully studying the size of the strike and the details of its objectives.

Arabi points out that there are other factors delaying the Israeli response, including logistical arrangements that require cooperation with the United States, in addition to waiting for the defensive equipment that will deal with any possible Iranian response. Among these preparations is the deployment of the American THAAD air defense system in Israel, a step that may enhance the occupation’s ability to confront any Iranian threats. In light of the completion of these preparations, Arabi believes that the Israeli strike on Iran is imminent.

Arabi points out that the general climate, as discussed in American and Israeli circles, indicates that the strike will target Iranian military sites, and will likely include strategic facilities such as missile and drone factories, in addition to other military targets.

Despite talk of focusing on military targets, Arabi points out the possibility that the strike could include sensitive civilian or economic sites, which makes it difficult to trust what is being circulated in American and Israeli public circles, as this talk may be part of an Israeli-American deception strategy towards Iran.

Arabi explains that the chain of responses between Israel and Iran is slow, but it will continue.

Will Iran respond if it is attacked?

Regarding Iran, Arabi raises questions about whether it will actually respond, as some of its leaders have stated, or whether it will prefer to absorb the Israeli strike, based on internal economic and political calculations. He believes that Iranian calculations take into account that the battle was not direct with Tehran, in addition to other internal factors.

In the context of the recent Iranian strike, Arabi points out that the strike was not merely a response to the assassination of Hamas political bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh or Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and to restore Hezbollah’s reputation, but rather came as a preemptive step, fearing that Iran might be targeted in broader strikes that might reach the capital, Tehran. This raises the question of whether Iran will respond forcefully to Israel or whether it will avoid escalating the confrontation.

Direct US Participation

Regarding American support for Israel, Arabi believes that the United States plays a pivotal role in providing logistical and intelligence support, and this support includes providing satellite images and intelligence information that help Israel target Iranian sites, and perhaps even direct American participation in military operations in covert ways.

Arabi points out that the United States will be effective in defending Israel from any possible Iranian response, especially if Iranian strikes target the Israeli interior.

On another level, Arabi explains that Gaza has become a secondary arena in terms of the Israeli war effort, according to Israeli statements, but this does not mean that Gaza has completely lost its importance, as it is still a major arena in the political dimension, as Israel continues to monitor and deal with the situation in the Strip on an ongoing basis.

Strike scenarios control the course of regional developments

Dr. Saad Nimr, a professor of political science at Birzeit University, believes that the expected Israeli strike against Iran is governed by several scenarios that may determine the course of regional events.

Nimr explains that the first scenario is based on the United States’ desire to avoid igniting a wide regional war, and therefore Washington is trying to direct Israel towards a balanced and not exaggerated response to Iran, as happened last time. The goal is to avoid provoking Iran to carry out another response, which could lead to the region sliding into a wider conflict. This scenario indicates that the United States is still seeking to control matters in a way that prevents escalation.

The second scenario is linked to differing opinions within Israel, where there are currents pushing towards directing a direct strike against the Iranian nuclear program or targeting Iran's vital oil interests, according to Nimr.

Nimr points out that the realization of this scenario will necessarily lead to the outbreak of a regional war, which is what Washington fears if Israel chooses to implement an unbalanced and strong response. For this reason, the United States has provided Israel with the advanced THAAD defense system and its personnel, which means that Washington is more involved in any potential escalation.

Israel seeks to drag the region into a large-scale regional war

Nimr expects that this strike may lead to a series of actions and reactions between the two parties, but this series of strikes may get out of control and lead to a dangerous escalation that may extend to a wide regional war, according to the size of the Israeli strikes.

Nimr believes that the timing of the Israeli strike on Iran may be very soon, and may be carried out before the US elections.

Nimr points out that Israel aims to drag the region into a broad regional war that may serve the goals of the Israeli government.

Netanyahu will keep the Gaza front open

In another context, Nimr explains that Israel's announcement that it is dealing with Gaza as a secondary arena at the present time, in order for the Israeli military effort to focus on southern Lebanon and confronting Hezbollah.

In this context, Nimr points out that Israel seeks, through this policy, to close the prisoners’ file and stop negotiations and ceasefire temporarily or permanently, in an attempt by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to calm the families of Israeli detainees in Gaza.

However, Nimr believes that Netanyahu will keep the Gaza front open, but without giving it the same importance that he gives to the Lebanese front, where Israel has reduced its military presence, but that does not mean that the crimes and massacres will stop.

Meanwhile, Nimr points out that Israel's talk that Gaza is a secondary arena may be a step on its part to direct media and international attention away from the Strip, and shift focus towards southern Lebanon and the potential confrontation with Hezbollah, while turning a blind eye to the massacres it is committing in Gaza.

Two Israeli goals for the war

Writer, political analyst and specialist in Israeli affairs Nihad Abu Ghosh explains that Israel is adopting two complementary goals in its expected strike on Iran. First, it seeks to restore the deterrent power that was affected after Iran reached Israeli military targets. Israel wants to send a message that it has the ability to target any Iranian target anywhere, relying on strong military and political support from the United States.

The second and most important goal, according to Abu Ghosh, is to launch a military strike to eliminate the Iranian nuclear project, which is considered an existential threat to Israel.

Abu Ghosh points out that there are expectations that Israel may target nuclear, oil, military and leadership facilities in Iran, despite American advice to Israel to avoid targeting oil and nuclear facilities. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may evade, despite statements about his response to American recommendations.

Abu Ghosh believes that any Israeli strike targeting the Iranian nuclear project will not be sufficient to eliminate it, given the distribution of nuclear facilities over thousands of sites in vast areas of Iran.

He points out that Israel, based on directing a strike against Iran, is not immune from Iranian reactions, and what Israel fears most is finding itself in the midst of a war of attrition, a scenario that could be devastating for it, noting that the possible sequence of Iranian responses constitutes part of this war of attrition.

Abu Ghosh concludes that the escalation of the war could have been avoided if Israel had ended the war on the Gaza Strip and concluded a deal, but the desire to target the Iranian nuclear program is an opportunity for Israel.

Abu Ghosh expects that an Israeli strike on Iran may be very close, especially with the approach of the US elections.

American partnership and indirect intervention

As for the American intervention, Abu Ghosh explains that this intervention is not direct, but rather represents a partnership close to direct participation, whereby the United States of America provides legitimacy for any Israeli aggression as well as its pledges to participate militarily in defending Israel and providing it with defensive equipment, but not actual participation.

Abu Ghosh stresses that America is undoubtedly a partner in this war, although its direct role is still limited, and the United States so far declares that it is participating in defense and not attack in this war.

Declaring Gaza a Secondary Battlefield is an Israeli Ruse

Regarding the situation in Gaza, Abu Ghosh describes the declaration of Gaza as a secondary battlefield as an Israeli trick aimed at diverting attention from what is happening there.

Abu Ghosh asserts that, on the contrary, Gaza has become an arena for Israel to carry out massacres that take place in secret without the world hearing about them, in an Israeli attempt to reap the results of the war that has been ongoing for about a year.