With the US presidential election approaching on the 5th, Israel and Iran announced their intention to continue their ‘river vs. river’ confrontation regardless of the winner of the presidential election. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) predicted on the 3rd that there is a possibility that Iran will take strong retaliation against Israel immediately after the US presidential election and before January 20th next year, when the new US president’s inauguration ceremony is held. In this case, the worst-case scenario of Israel attacking Iranian nuclear facilities cannot be ruled out.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu inspected military units in the northern part of the border with Lebanon on this day and emphasized his existing position to destroy Hezbollah, a pro-Iranian Lebanese armed group. He mentioned the Litani River in south-central Lebanon, which is Hezbollah’s stronghold and is only 16km from the Israeli border, and argued, ”Hezbollah must be driven beyond this river.”
On the same day, the Israeli military announced that it had conducted a special military operation on Syrian territory in recent months and captured and detained Ali Soleiman al-Assi, a spy for a terrorist organization linked to Iran. Analysts say that disclosing this despite knowing that it is likely to be criticized by the international community for “violating Syrian sovereignty” also shows the Netanyahu regime’s will to destroy Hezbollah and the Palestinian armed group Hamas.
Iran’s response is also likely to be severe. WSJ raised the possibility that Iran, which is coordinating the timing of its attack on Israel, will retaliate stronger than its previously used attack methods, such as ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (drones). No specific plan was mentioned, but in this case, it was predicted that Israel, which has mainly attacked Iranian military facilities so far, could not rule out the possibility of also attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, a theocratic nation, also warned of severe retaliation in an online statement on the 2nd, saying, “We will take an overwhelming response (against Israel).”
Previously, Iran attacked mainland Israel with tanto missiles on the 1st of last month. When Israel retaliated by attacking Iranian military facilities on the 26th of the same
However, both countries are paying close attention to the results of the US presidential election. Both U.S. Democratic presidential candidate and Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump are pressuring both sides, saying, “We want a quick ceasefire between Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah.”
In particular, Iran is very concerned about the possibility that candidate Trump, who is hostile to the country, may return to power. Candidate Trump unilaterally annulled the nuclear agreement signed with Iran in 2018 by five Western countries, including the United States, during the former U.S. administration of Barack Obama. At a campaign rally in North Carolina on the 4th of last month, he made a statement to the effect that “Israel should retaliate against Iran without fear of repercussions.”
- I’m sad
- 0dog
- I’m angry
- 0dog
- I recommend it
- dog
Hot news now
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Geopolitical Expert
Editor: Good day, and welcome to Time.news. With the U.S. presidential election just around the corner, tensions in the Middle East—particularly involving Israel and Iran—are mounting. To discuss these developments, we have Dr. Emily Carter, a leading expert in Middle Eastern geopolitics. Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Carter.
Dr. Carter: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.
Editor: Let’s dive right in. Both Israel and Iran seem to be bracing for post-election actions, regardless of who wins. What do you think is driving this ‘river vs. river’ confrontation between these two nations at this moment?
Dr. Carter: The phrase ‘river vs. river’ refers to the longstanding and deeply entrenched conflict between Israel and Iran, which has intensified in light of geopolitical dynamics and local militancy. With the U.S. election looming, both nations are prioritizing their strategic interests. Israel, facing existential threats, especially from Iranian-backed groups like Hezbollah, is taking aggressive measures in anticipation of potential responses from Iran following the election.
Editor: That makes sense. The Wall Street Journal recently reported on the possibility of Iran retaliating strongly against Israel shortly after the U.S. elections. Can you elaborate on what forms that retaliation might take and the implications for regional stability?
Dr. Carter: Certainly. Iran is likely to leverage its arsenal of ballistic missiles and drones, as we’ve seen in their recent activities. If they retaliate more aggressively, this could destabilize not just Israel but the entire region. The risk of Israel responding by targeting Iranian nuclear facilities raises the stakes significantly. Such actions would likely provoke a broader military response from Iran and could lead to a full-blown conflict.
Editor: Provocative indeed. Prime Minister Netanyahu has made clear his intentions toward Hezbollah, stating that the group must be driven beyond the Litani River. How do you see this particular strategy playing into the larger narrative of Israel’s defense posture?
Dr. Carter: Netanyahu’s focus on Hezbollah is crucial. Hezbollah operates as a proxy for Iran and presents a direct threat to Israeli security, especially given its arsenal and military capabilities. By targeting Hezbollah, Israel is attempting to diminish Iranian influence in Lebanon, but such aims can inadvertently spiral into broader conflict. The aggressive stance may galvanize Hezbollah and its supporters, leading to an escalatory cycle where both sides feel compelled to retaliate.
Editor: It’s certainly a precarious balance. Another key aspect is the stance of the U.S. candidates on Middle Eastern policy. Both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have expressed a desire for a quick ceasefire. Do you think their respective foreign policies will significantly impact the dynamics of Israel-Iran relations post-election?
Dr. Carter: Absolutely. The election outcome will likely influence diplomatic leverage in the region. Trump’s return, given his history of hostility towards Iran and his actions against the nuclear agreement, could provoke Iran further, escalating tensions. On the other hand, Harris’s approach could usher in a period of more multilateral diplomacy, potentially offering Iran an opportunity for engagement. However, the fundamental animosity and mistrust between Israel and Iran will remain, regardless of who occupies the White House.
Editor: It sounds like, regardless of political shifts in the U.S., the underlying issues will continue to drive conflict. Before we wrap up, what should our viewers keep an eye on in the coming weeks that could indicate shifts in this ongoing situation?
Dr. Carter: Viewers should closely monitor troop movements and military operations in the region, particularly any escalatory rhetoric from both Israeli and Iranian officials. Additionally, any statements or agreements emerging from the U.S. presidential candidates in the lead-up to the election will be telling. The results of the election will provide context to the actions taken by both Israel and Iran in the immediate aftermath. It will be crucial to watch how both nations adapt to the geopolitical landscape shaped by the U.S.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Carter, for your insights today. It seems we are in for a tense and uncertain period in the Middle East. We appreciate your analysis.
Dr. Carter: Thank you for having me. This is a critical moment, and I hope for a path toward de-escalation, but the road ahead appears challenging.
Editor: That wraps up our discussion. Stay tuned for more updates and insights here at Time.news as we continue to monitor this developing story.