Throughout the last few years, the Iranian nuclear file was never absent from the forefront of the events. But nowadays, it has become essential, a pivotal point for political conflict in more than one country and one of the headlines of the presidential battle in the United States. It has also become the center of the ongoing controversy in Israel between the government and its opponents, as well as within the ranks of the military leaders, whether it is those who have retired or those still in the service. Moreover, it is the object of standoffs, misunderstandings and disputes between Washington and Tel Aviv, and naturally remains a card in the hands of the authority in Tehran, considering that the escalation is helping President Ahmadinejad in the face of his rivals, and allowing him to rally support in favor of his legitimacy which confronted major questions during the 2009 elections. Hence, this file is a polarizing and combining national slogan for the majority of the Iranian people. During this stage of political escalation surrounding the Iranian nuclear file, it would be difficult to predict the eruption of war on the eve of the American presidential elections at the beginning of November, or after they are held. The flow of statements, especially in the context of the heated dispute within Netanyahu's government and between the various military and partisan elite, reveals that war is inevitable and will occur as soon as possible. As for the Iranian media machine, it is accompanying the escalation with threats to set the region on fire, “from China to Palestine," as it is said by the Iranian officials. Ever since its establishment, it was at the core of Israel's military doctrine not to allow any neighboring state or regional power to possess Weapons of Mass Destruction that would pose a threat to its very existence. This is why it did not hesitate to destroy the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, and then the Syrian “reactor" in 2007, as this fell in the context of this security principle. Neither Iraq nor Syria were about to produce nuclear weapons, but this did not prevent Tel Aviv from destroying these facilities. So why has it not yet attacked the Islamic Republic, although it perceives the Iranian nuclear file as being a “fateful challenge"? But at the level of the nuclear file, it has not stopped issuing warnings, carrying out trade-offs, overbidding, blackmail and raising commotion on a daily basis. Why would such a sensitive issue be the object of debate before the people in Iran, Israel and America, unless there are other goals behind all this commotion? And had Tel Aviv been able to wage war individually, would it have shown any reluctance? Or is it unable to do so and requires help and support from the United States? Is this why the American chief of staff said that his country will not participate in such an operation alongside Israel? Does Israel fear a wide-scale regional war to which Iran will lead it as it is being cautioned by more than one Israel, American and Iranian official? For his part, President Barack Obama announced on more than one occasion that he will do whatever is in his country's power to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but this merely aimed at appeasing Israel's fears and preventing it from dragging the United States into a new war in the region. In the meantime, Pentagon's generals are not showing any enthusiasm towards new military venture, as they have not yet healed the wounds and overcome the burdens of the Iraqi and Afghan wars. Moreover, the American economy is still struggling with the deficit, debt, unemployment and recession crisis, while China and Russia are threatening against the staging of any attack on Iran. Hence, this is being taken into account by the American administration which needs Moscow to understand the purpose of the Missile Shield and hopes it would help it at the level of files related to Central Asia. In addition, it needs China's economic and financial cooperation and wishes it to engage in partnership to ensure stability in the Pacific Ocean. On the other hand, Washington is well aware of the fact that the American and European bases spread in the region, from the Gulf to the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, will be under the mercy of the Iranian rockets, no matter how painful the first strikes are to Iran's facilities, batteries and arsenals. Also for Hezbollah, Iran's heavily armed wing on the border with Israel, the eruption of war will be an awaited event, while the strike might constitute the opportunity anticipated by Bashar al-Assad's regime to widen the confrontation. In the mid-nineties, the United States refused to strike the North Korean program to avoid wide-scale confrontation in the region. For its part, Pyongyang which possesses the nuclear bomb never used it – and will never do – in the context of war, and is rather maneuvering with it to protect its regime firstly, and conduct trade-offs that would help its people survive secondly. The same goes for India and Pakistan, both of which acquired nuclear weapons but headed towards understandings instead of war, which constituted their only way out of the crises! This is why Western circles do not perceive the Iranian nuclear file as being an urgent threat, believing that in any upcoming war the Islamic Republic will firstly resort to missiles, and that even if it were to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not resort to it, but rather use it as a an element of deterrence in the face of the Israeli bomb among others. Indeed, the Iranian rockets machine, which features hundreds of ballistic missiles, can inflict great damage on Israel, and allow Iran to wage a very long war. This is why NATO hastened the establishment of the missile shield that raised Russia's disgruntlement, although all the statements saying that the shield aims at protecting the NATO member states against the Iranian rockets. Despite this, Iran is aware of the fact that its air force will be unable to confront any modern air force such as the one enjoyed by the Gulf states, Israel, America and Europe. Moreover, its traditional missiles might not have the effect depicted by its propaganda machine, when compared to the impact of the Israeli military machine with its air offense capabilities and its Arrow defense rockets. It is even noticeable that the concerns of the Hebrew state are primarily due to what its generals dub the “states of the first circle," i.e. the surrounding states, at the head of which are the Lebanese Hezbollah and Syria which are nowadays extremely preoccupied. At this level, it is no secret that Iran imposed massive financial burdens on Israel by forcing it to develop its missile defense system and renew its air, land and naval forces. Moreover, it forced the Gulf states to enhance its nuclear arsenal, which led the region into an endless armament race. In addition, there are now more than seven states in the region planning on acquiring nuclear programs, not to mention the massive arms deals. Iran on the other hand, despite all the commotion and the threatening speeches, has not shown any enthusiasm towards war. Had it wanted war, it would have engaged in the confrontation during the July 2006 war and the Gaza war at the end of 2008 among others. Moreover, it would have implemented its threats to close the Strait of Hormuz in case the sanctions were to affect its oil sector, knowing that they did while it failed to move a muscle! What Tehran wants is to become part of the political, economic and security regional order. But the United States which worked for a long time to distance all the powers in the region from the Gulf security system, is not showing any real willingness to include Iran – or at least give it what it aspires to achieve. In light of this reality, war does not seem to be imminent or to constitute a solution. Indeed, what good would it do if the strike against the Iranian nuclear facilities were to delay their work, not stop them? What about the consequences of comprehensive war on the region and the world if the oil transportation lines are obstructed? Can the industrial West and the Developing Countries tolerate further economic and social problems? And more importantly, had Israel known about the repercussions of the July 2006 war, would it still have launched it? At this level, the same question applies to Hezbollah, which would have abstained from kidnapping the Israeli soldiers had it known that this act would spark war, and that the Hebrew state was waiting and planning for it? This was said by its Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah on more than one occasion, i.e. that he had not anticipated the size of the Israeli response to the kidnapping. And the same question applies to the current situation: If the entire region will drown in wide-scale regional war, will anyone launch this confrontation with full awareness and determination? Based on historical experiences, there is hope that amid this heated and tense climate, dialogue or understandings will emerge, leading to some sort of a deal that would start in Syria and include other elements, from Lebanon to Iraq, the Gulf, Pakistan and Afghanistan, which has constituted and continues to constitute a source of concern for Tehran. The previous decade witnessed an understanding between Washington and Tehran during the two wars to topple the Taliban and then Saddam Hussein's regime. But the developments currently seen in the Arab region have turned the situation upside down, and do not only constitute a challenge for the region's populations and old and new ruling elite, but also for the regional and international superpowers and their ability to deal with the changes. This is due to the fact that the old regime has collapsed and that they must reconsider the rules that this situation imposed on all levels, whether political, military or economic. In light of these inappropriate circumstances, it would be too soon to see fruitful dialogue between the superpowers in the region, the United States, Russia, China and Europe to place the foundations of a regional order, which is in turn linked to arrangements affecting other regions, from the China Sea to Central Asia and Africa. So will war be an inevitable option from whose womb the New Middle East will emerge?
