“Iran is, essentially, a paper tiger except for its terrorist capabilities,” said Bruce Hoffman, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.
“Who would fight against whom? Iran perhaps can, and I dare say, has the capability to carry out global terrorist attacks as retaliation. But, I believe that can be prevented,” Hoffman suggests.
He emphasizes that Iran “has no army, no air force.”
“It has a very limited navy. I mean, it can fight along its coasts in the Gulf, but there is no regional war. That’s an exaggeration,” Hoffman states.
According to him, Iran demonstrated its weakness in the “ineffective” missile barrages launched at Israel (United States (U.S.) and Israeli media confirmed significant damage was caused).
“We see how weak Iran is because it essentially stood on the sidelines while Israel first decapitated the leadership of its most important proxy (Hezbollah), and now it has lost about half of its arsenal of rockets and missiles,” Hoffman claims.
Israel has announced severe retaliation for the Iranian missile attack on Tuesday.
“Paradoxically, from the Israeli perspective, it is less costly to strike Iran’s nuclear capabilities than to hit its oil pumping facilities on Kharg Island. Namely, any attack on Iranian oil will have second and third-order consequences. First, on global energy supply, and then on world economies,” the analyst points out.
He believes that Arab countries will stay on the sidelines in case of an escalation between Iran and Israel.
“Well, publicly, of course, they will lament the escalation of violence in the region. However, they will be absolutely happy that Iran no longer poses a threat to them. We have seen how Tehran, through its proxies, has been a direct threat to several Gulf countries, whether it’s Kuwait, Bahrain, or Saudi Arabia, which has been hit by missiles fired by Yemeni Houthis,” says the Washington-based analyst.
Lasting peace in the Middle East is not possible without a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“The Israelis themselves are against a two-state solution – one Israeli and one Palestinian – because they fear that a Palestinian state, at this moment when Hamas has not yet been fully defeated, would be an even greater threat to Israel in the future,” Hoffman notes.
However, according to him, the two-state solution remains the only viable option.
“However, for it to be functional, it must be established between two sovereign governments, not between a sovereign government and a terrorist entity. That’s what I believe must change now, and that’s why a new status quo needs to be established,” Hoffman concludes.
He points out that Russia and China currently do not have a significant interest in the Middle East.
“The war in Ukraine has real consequences for global stability. When it comes to the conflict in the Middle East, aside from the energy dimension, I don’t see there being such global consequences,” the Council on Foreign Relations analyst believes.
