Iraqi researcher Firas Elias, specializing in strategic and security affairs, believes that the administration of US President Donald Trump is currently seeking a military strike model against Iran that differs radically from anything the region has witnessed before. This difference stems from the complexities of the Iranian situation, both internally and externally. Tehran possesses the capacity to inflict harm and confront challenges, making it essential to deal with it in a way that ensures Trump does not suffer a political defeat should deterrence fail or the strike backfire. Elias added to “Sawt Al Emarat” that while intensive regional efforts are underway to defuse the situation, US forces have continued their military movements on the ground since this morning. This indicates that matters may indeed be heading towards a military confrontation.
Features of a complex attack and a scenario of internal dismantling
The Iraqi researcher continued, stating that the US administration realistically recognizes the impossibility of a direct and protracted war with Iran due to the uncertain military and political costs. Therefore, any potential action will rely on a low-intensity internal destabilization scenario rather than open confrontation. Elias added that military reports indicate the attack will be phased, beginning with a cyberattack and culminating in airstrikes involving strategic bombers within the next 24 hours. These strikes aim to target security, military, and intelligence infrastructure to disrupt field command, create an impression of loss of control, and undermine psychological deterrence. They also aim to create a calculated period of chaos that can be exploited later.
Empowering local forces and a strategy of attrition at the borders
The researcher in strategic and security affairs stated, “Washington may rely in later stages on empowering armed or separatist groups to control small border cities without a formal declaration. Signs of this have already begun to emerge with the Kurdish Free Life Party’s announcement of its control over Revolutionary Guard positions in Kermanshah and the military tensions in the southeast of the country.” Elias explained that this strategy aims to weaken the regime’s ability to confront protests and increase the likelihood of hesitant social classes taking to the streets. This is achieved by linking internal security to open border fronts, which has prompted Tehran to demand that neighboring countries secure their borders. This reflects Washington’s desire to create new bargaining chips in the nuclear and regional issues without incurring the cost of a full-scale war.
Obstacles to progress and the risks of a lack of political vision
Elias argued that this approach, based on “hybrid warfare,” faces significant obstacles, including Iran’s advanced intelligence capabilities and the sensitivity of neighboring countries to any prolonged border instability. He also cited the weak public support for foreign intervention.
Dr. Firas Elias warned that any military strike lacking a clear political strategy for the post-attack phase would lead to a certain catastrophe both inside and outside Iran. This is especially true given that the confrontation between Trump and Khamenei has moved beyond calculated responses and reached a point of no return. This means that Tehran might retaliate with harsh and unconventional measures, potentially presenting the Trump administration with extremely difficult existential challenges.
