An escalation of the conflict between Iran and Israel on the eve of the US elections would prompt the US to take drastic de-escalation measures, Iranian analyst estimates Imad Kiyaidirector of the NGO Middle East Treaty Organization (METO) which works for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East. METO includes Iranian, Israeli and Arab academics and activists working for peace in a climate of open dialogue, as he noted in his interview with Vima.
For the first time in history, Iran and Israel are in direct conflict. Could this lead to a bigger war in the Middle East involving Arab countries?
“The direct conflict between Iran and Israel is unprecedented and poses a great risk for a wider regional escalation, as both countries are influential players and entrenched alliances in the Middle East. One could argue that we are already in a regional war with many actors inside and outside the region.
But the options available to Iran to respond – directly or through allied organizations – may draw in neighboring Arab countries that could be pressured to take a clearer position in a polarized landscape where alliances with the US or Iran would demand loyalty amid rising tensions. In this scenario there is a risk of regional escalation and destabilization of vulnerable areas such as Lebanon, Yemen and Syria, which would potentially drag more countries into direct or proxy conflicts.”
Does the war threaten the existence of the Iranian regime?
“While conflict with Israel carries significant risks, it is unlikely to pose an existential and immediate threat to the Iranian establishment, which is entrenched with a network of internal security and regional alliances and has endured various crises over the past decades including sanctions, internal unrest and military conflicts.
However, the security and economic implications could test the government’s resources and stability. Popular discontent could grow, but the power of the central government and the security apparatus make it resilient to immediate existential threats. The greatest threat may come from accumulated internal pressures coupled with economic woes as regional conflicts tend to exacerbate socioeconomic issues inside Iran.”
What would be the consequences of a new round of attacks on the eve of the US elections?
“Any escalation of hostilities between Iran and Israel in the run-up to the US election would have far-reaching economic and political implications for the US, particularly through the impact on energy prices. Iran’s strategic position in the Strait of Hormuz gives it the ability to influence international energy markets, where even the threat of a conflict could send oil prices soaring. That would have an economic impact on American voters already worried about inflation, especially in swing states.
The impact on oil prices could shift public opinion on the government’s handling of the Middle East crisis and sway undecided voters in a highly lopsided election. A major escalation would pressure the government to either take drastic de-escalation measures or risk negative electoral repercussions.”
Can this war be ended by diplomacy? How could all weapons of mass destruction be eliminated from the Middle East when Israel has a nuclear arsenal and Iran aspires to build a nuclear bomb?
“Diplomacy remains a viable way to resolve this conflict, despite the difficulties. A US-Iran “freeze-for-freeze” agreement could de-escalate the current situation, as long as Iran would agree to stop retaliatory acts against Israel, maintain maritime security, and influence regional actors to reduce hostilities.
In return, the US could unfreeze previously frozen Iranian assets, ease some sanctions and encourage Israel to reach a ceasefire deal. This first step would create space for further negotiations and confidence-building for a long-term diplomatic solution, which would include renewing the 2015 deal on Iran’s nuclear program, from which Trump withdrew the US in 2018.
In addition, sustained diplomatic efforts between the US and Iran could lay the groundwork for the development of several proposals to promote regional security and disarmament, including the establishment of a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East (WMDFZME). This initiative, originally presented by Egypt and Iran in 1990, seeks the elimination of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons from the region (it includes 22 Arab countries, Iran and Israel). After decades of inactivity, hopes have been renewed with UN-sponsored efforts that have resulted in the convening of annual conferences on the issue since 2019, to which all 24 countries in the region have been invited, in order to advance the debate on potential contribution of this Zone to regional security.
These meetings are a vital platform for building consensus among regional actors – although for now, both Israel and Iran refuse to participate. A US-Iran de-escalation could bolster confidence-building efforts across the Middle East, paving the way for a framework for comprehensive regional disarmament consistent with international goals against nuclear proliferation. Ultimately, the region must decide whether to implement a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone or risk more countries seeking to acquire these weapons of mass destruction.”
How is the cooperation in METO between Iranian and Israeli activists? What are the reactions from the respective countries and the international community for your work?
“Working at METO is rewarding and creative as the organization is one of the few NGOs where Iranians, Israelis, Arabs and other Middle East stakeholders work together to promote peace and disarmament. This unique platform encourages open dialogue about mutual security concerns, a dialogue that is often not possible in more formal diplomatic arenas.
Activists, academics and citizens from all sides offer valuable perspectives and METO’s work acts as a bridge to promote mutual understanding, build trust and create solutions based on regional approaches with the support of the international community.
While some political actors are skeptical of our joint peace efforts, others see METO’s work as aligned with broader aspirations for nuclear security and non-proliferation. It is worth noting that the annual UN session on the Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone has led to increased support for regional disarmament initiatives.
In the framework of our consulting and research activities, we have contributed to the provision of politically sound and technically viable solutions which are presented in a draft agreement for study by all stakeholders. With inclusive dialogue and an emphasis on diplomacy, METO shows that a Middle East of cooperation, stability and peace is possible, despite the complex challenges facing the region today.”
#Imad #Kiyai #BIMA #IranIsrael #escalation #push #drastic #measures
