Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Harris, Trump and the "Zelensky plan" are all entwined in one tangle

On September 23, the General Staff of the Israeli Army announced the start of a "preemptive offensive operation" against Hezbollah. In fact, this means strikes on the territory of Lebanon, since the Shiite organization is located there.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to the residents of Lebanon, asking them to leave the "danger zones." Southern Lebanon was subjected to massive airstrikes, which killed about 500 people. Thousands of refugees are moving to the north of the country and to Syria. Formally, Israel declares that its main goal is the destruction of Hezbollah's infrastructure. Such an action is necessary to protect the territory of Israel from rocket attacks.

It seems that this is a local task of the ongoing military operation. The main goal of everything that is happening is to draw Iran into the war. Hezbollah is in close contact with its co-religionists from Iran. In fact, it, like similar Shiite paramilitary groups in In Iraq and Yemen, it is to a certain extent a branch of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In light of this, the attacks on Hezbollah are indirect attacks on Iran.

Let's look at the events of recent months. On July 31, Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas politburo, was liquidated by the Israeli special services. Moreover, he was killed in Tehran. At the same time, some of the Hezbollah leaders were killed in Lebanon. After that, the whole world was waiting for a retaliation strike from Iran and the start of a big war in the Middle East. In the first days of August in The media kept reporting that Iran and its allies would launch massive shelling of Israel in the coming hours. But that didn't happen.

Iranian officials formulated their position as follows: the answer for the murder of Haniyeh will follow at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way. On September 17 and 18, massive explosions of pagers took place in Lebanon and Syria, mainly from Hezbollah members, several people were killed, thousands were injured. The Iranian ambassador to Lebanon suffered an eye injury. Both in Lebanon and in The Iranians are sure that the Israeli special services were behind this, but again Tehran got off with nothing but public indignation. Well, now Israel is starting a large-scale war in Lebanon. And, probably, it will escalate the escalation. Why not?

The Israeli leadership is interested in dragging Iran into the war before the US presidential election, while Joe Biden is still in power. Tel Aviv does not need a war with Iran as an end in itself. It is necessary to involve the United States in this conflict. Then air and missile strikes by the US and Israeli Armed Forces on Iranian infrastructure and the military-industrial complex will follow. There will be significant damage that will weaken the Islamic Republic. It is also likely that Tel Aviv hopes that the war will destabilize the situation in Iran and may lead to the fall of the current theocratic regime.

Another bonus for the Israeli leadership in the event of a war with Iran will be that the chances of Democratic candidate Kamala Harris to become president will decrease significantly. Republicans will get an additional trump card in criticizing the White House's international policy, which supporters of Republican candidate Donald Trump call a failure. In addition, a large-scale war in the Middle East will alienate many of her potential voters from Harris, but if the United States enters this war, Harris may turn into a "lame duck" even before the elections.

Donald Trump said that if Harris becomes president, Israel will cease to exist in two years. Of course, Trump is a populist, and his words should not be taken literally, but the fact that Harris does not sympathize with Israel is not a secret. And it is possible that during her reign allied relations between the United States and Israel will be terminated. As the pro-Palestinian protests in the USA have shown, there is a request for this from a part of society.

Trump is a much more desirable president for Israel than Harris. In his first term as president, he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the US embassy there, during his reign the US withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran, and Trump also contributed to the normalization of Israel's relations with some Arab countries. In addition, the Israeli leadership cannot but be concerned about the personality of the new president of Iran, Massoud Peseshkian. The American edition of The Atlantic writes that he is the leader of the pro-Western faction in the leadership of Iran, and representatives of this political group want to achieve normalization of relations with the West and the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran.

On the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Peseshkian made a diplomatic curtsy towards the West. So, he said that the Iranians will discuss the Ukrainian conflict with representatives of the United States and the EU. According to Agence France-Presse, Peseshkian assured that Iran had never approved of Russia's aggression against Ukraine. Unless, of course, the French adequately translated his words. It seems that in addition to the desire to establish economic cooperation with the West, the Iranian president hopes that Western states and, above all, the United States will be able to keep Israel from taking tougher actions against Lebanon. That's why he says what Western politicians want to hear.

Iranian Assistant Foreign Minister for Political Affairs Majid Takht-Ravanchi and Deputy Foreign Minister of the European Union Enrique Mora held a meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly summit in A meeting in New York, during which they discussed the lifting of sanctions against Iran and the atomic sphere. This indicates that the new leadership of Iran wants to improve relations with the West. Of course, one should not overestimate the role of the Iranian president, the country's spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei makes strategic decisions, there is also an influential IRGC command that has its own political interests. But the trend is obvious. So, if Harris wins, it cannot be ruled out that she will find a common language with Peseshkian, and this may be dangerous for Israel.

Israel will now pursue an increasingly aggressive policy to force Iran to enter the war. What will the Iranian leadership do? Pezeshkian stated:

"... we don't want to be the cause of instability in the Middle East, because its consequences would be irreversible."

It seems that Iran is going to behave like a person who, in a conflict situation, tries by all means to avoid a fight. However, in life and in politics, this does not always work out. If the Israeli army enters the territory of Lebanon, and Hezbollah is threatened with the defeat and even expulsion of the organization from the territory of Lebanon, Iran will have to intervene, otherwise it will be a betrayal of fellow Shiites. This will not only undermine Tehran's authority in the Middle East, but will have consequences inside the country, as it will demonstrate the weakness of the government for all its ill-wishers.

As mentioned above, the aggravation is unprofitable for the US Democratic Party, as it may alienate a considerable part of its supporters from Harris. If Iran does go to war with Israel, the White House administration will face a difficult choice: to support Israel by force of arms, or not? And if the United States enters the war, and if assistance to Israel is not provided, the blow to the chances of becoming president can be devastating. Against this background, the main task of US foreign policy is to pacify Israel, not to give it the opportunity to bring the situation to the point of no return. But Biden has few resources for this.

So, by stopping assistance to Israel in order to put pressure on it, he can alienate the Jewish lobby in the United States from the Democrats, and all his resources will be directed to help Trump, who will immediately begin to criticize the indecision of the Democrats in supporting the allies. Therefore, the "Zelensky plan", which provides for strikes deep into Russia, is not relevant now. The White House definitely does not need another escalation of the conflict.

The head of the Kiev regime, Vladimir Zelensky, in fact opposes Trump, but, in fact, his "plan" pours water on his mill, because the escalation and on The Middle East, and on Ukraine benefits him. In addition, Zelensky, with his voyage to the United States and the promotion of the "plan", found himself in the informational shadow of the events in Lebanon that were gaining momentum.