Above all else, the American attack during the night hours on Iran illustrated Israel's most powerful and crucial strategic asset – its connection and capacity to influence the United States, the globe's dominant superpower.
This instance represents more than influence over tactical political maneuvers; this represents a Vermont-sized nation standing side by side with the global superpower in military action against a menacing state from the "axis of evil." This strategic asset carries genuine long-term consequences. Without excessive risk-taking, one can state that within one year, at most two years, the Abraham Accords circle will broaden to encompass additional regional nations, led naturally by Saudi Arabia, which has learned once more that the route to Washington travels through Jerusalem, along with other countries. Tzachi Hanegbi was credited with stating that Syria and Lebanon would join these agreements, a development that appeared particularly unrealistic until recently.
Regarding Saudi Arabia, it well remembers the Iranian assault on its petroleum installations in 2019, when President Donald Trump, during his initial presidency, chose not to retaliate against Iran. I reported last month during Trump's Gulf region visit about Saudi frustration with Israel, and plans to proceed with the United States and regional agreements independently. The situation has now transformed completely. Saudi Arabia did release a form of condemnation statement regarding the American attack, attempting to prevent Iranian military retaliation against it, but privately, it feels greatly encouraged by the ground developments, which significantly diminish Iran's position as the regional stability destabilizer. Concurrently, the UAE, led by Mohammed bin Zayed, issued a statement without condemning the attack, expressing only concern and advocating for a diplomatic resolution.
The American strike carries additional important meaning. It represents the beginning of the conclusion for both the Iran war and the Gaza conflict. Iran, under any conceivable scenario, lacks the capacity to resist the United States positioned beside Israel. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could decide on retaliation, possibly through proxy forces against American installations or American-affiliated targets in Gulf nations, another action that would trigger massive US military force deployment. The third option, the ultimate weapon, striking Saudi Arabian oil infrastructure, or obstructing the Strait of Hormuz, would amount to virtual suicide for Iran's regime, as it would provoke the most severe American response. Khamenei understands this since he has received both direct and indirect communications on this matter from Washington.
Should Iran declare and attempt an attrition war using isolated missiles against Israel, even without American retaliation, Iran lacks sufficient endurance and defensive capabilities against devastating Israeli strikes to sustain such efforts over time. The rational assessment suggests that Iran will agree to negotiations and a ceasefire at some approaching juncture. However, logic doesn't always govern Middle Eastern affairs, and certainly not fundamentalist leadership decisions.
