AhlulBayt News Agency (ABNA): Richard Haass, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated that contrary to Western desires, a military action against Iran would not lead to a change in governance.
On Saturday, in a note on the Project Syndicate website, he emphasized that this is an "elective war" and that the United States has chosen to attack Iran instead of pursuing diplomatic solutions to resolve the nuclear issue or increasing economic pressure.
On Saturday morning, the United States and the Israeli regime targeted locations in Iran during nuclear negotiations, which was met with a missile response from Tehran, targeting several American and Israeli bases in the region.
Haass rejected Washington's claim of a "preemptive strike" against Iran, stating that Tehran had not threatened America's vital interests, was not on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, and was not about to use its weapons against the US.
He added that if countries claim to counter a "potential threat" and launch a preemptive attack, the world will constantly witness military conflicts, and therefore, America's claims against Iran to initiate these attacks are contrary to international law.
The American analyst emphasized that Washington's policy of removing political and military leaders from countries is "unlikely to succeed in Iran" because Iran's governance has been institutionalized over the past half-century.
Richard Haass pointed out that the Iranian opposition is not united and does not act as a shadow government ready to take power.
He added that experience shows that even if American military forces are present in Iran, this does not guarantee success, as "occupying Iran, given its size and ability to resist, is unimaginable."
He mentioned past failures in other countries, including Libya, and stated that it seems Trump has fallen into the trap of his actions regarding Iran.
Furthermore, the analyst added that the Trump administration, by starting a war, has once again accepted significant strategic commitments in the Middle East, which contradicts Trump's national security strategy and reality, as the largest challenges to US interests are in Europe and the Indo-Pacific region.
Richard Haass emphasized that Trump, by attacking Iran, has ignored the experience of the 2003 Iraq war, which, like Iran, was carried out under the pretext of a "preventive war" and had enormous costs for the United States.
He stated that American society is not prepared for this war, adding that Trump's electoral base is not ready, and this war will weaken markets and increase energy prices, while America's regional allies are dissatisfied.
The international affairs analyst pointed out that the United States will not determine the end of the conflict, saying: "Only one side is needed to start a war, but two sides are required to end it, and Iran now has the right to decide how big this conflict will be and how long it will last."
**************
End/ 345E
