Eva J. Koulouriotis | إيفا كولوريوتي

across the Azerbaijani border. The war today is a contest of “biting fingers”: whoever feels the pain first and pulls back will lose. Operation Epic Fury will be a new turning point, not only for the Middle East but for the entire world, as a new Middle East will signify a new world order. 🧵

such as the Iranian president, the head of the judiciary, and Ali Larijani, who is practically leading the war. There has also been talk about mobilizing Kurdish militias, supported by the US and Israel, from northern Iraq into Iran, in parallel with airborne operations and a ground offensive

Tehran is still capable of striking oil and gas fields in the Gulf states and is still capable of targeting desalination plants in the Gulf. On the other hand, the US and Israel can still have the ability to assassinate the new and future Supreme Leaders, as well as other high-ranking officials

The bottom line: It is still too early to talk about the end of the war and its results. However, it is essential to emphasize that the parties to the conflict still have other cards to play. Iran has not used the Houthis to close the Bab al-Mandeb Strait or to attack Saudi oil fields.

regime remains capable of keeping the region, including Israel, in a state of perpetual war. So, what comes next, and what is the way out?

against Israel and the Gulf states. Consequently, in a few days, we may find ourselves facing a clearer equation: the US and Israel destroy most of the Iranian regime's military, naval, and economic infrastructure, while the Iranian

institutions, even if not the same individuals. Of course, the assassination of Khamenei carries significant symbolic weight, but the importance of this harsh blow will gradually diminish as Tehran continues closing the Strait of Hormuz and launching missile and drone attacks

a complex equation. Iran sees a protracted war as its optimal option, believing that its enemies are unprepared for months of conflict. From the Iranian perspective, victory means Tehran not to surrender to an agreement on the enemy's terms, and for the regime to remain as

In the current military scene, it's impossible to say that the situation is decisively settled in favor of one side over the other. Despite the formidable capabilities of the American and Israeli militaries, Tehran and its militias' ability to continue launching retaliatory strikes presents us with

emergence of a project led by Jerusalem. Of course, Washington and Jerusalem may change their vision for how the war ends based on developments on the ground. Washington may become more hardline, and Israel may be forced to accept a lesser outcome than expected.

In Israel, however, the leadership desires a radical change of the regime in Tehran, meaning the end of the rule of the Supreme Leader and the establishment of a new regime open to diplomatic relations with Israel and the US, and thus the end of the Shiite Crescent project and the

The Trump administration prefers an Iranian leadership that responds to its demands within the four points mentioned earlier. Thus, it can be said that Washington wants to change the mindset of the Iranian regime.

What does Washington want from this war, and does its vision align with the Israeli vision? In my opinion, despite some American officials talking about regime change in Iran, Washington's vision of this change may be more moderate.

closing the Bab al-Mandeb Strait and, before that, by striking Saudi oil fields. Therefore, yes, the Iranian regime, with its current mindset, has been and continues to be a cause of instability in the entire Middle East and a threat to international peace and the global economy.

In the West Bank and Gaza, Tehran supported Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which ultimately led to the October 7 attacks. In Yemen, Tehran supported the Ansar Allah (Houthi) militia, which, as we have witnessed over the past three years, has caused damage to the global economy by

In Lebanon, Tehran contributed to the formation of Hezbollah, which attacked Israel several times, took control of the government, and transformed Lebanon from a prosperous state into one that is economically and security-wise collapsed.

In Syria, Tehran and its militias played a pivotal role in prolonging the life of the Assad regime for 14 years, leading to the destruction of Syria, a wave of millions of Syrian refugees, and the death of around one million Syrians.

is called the export of the Iranian Islamic Revolution. In Iraq, Tehran funded the formation of dozens of militias that committed numerous war crimes, participated in the war in Syria in support of the Assad regime, and threatened to target the Gulf states on several occasions.

Was there any merit to the diplomatic path, given that the Iranian regime truly poses a threat to the Middle East and international peace? In fact, anyone familiar with the Middle East, particularly over the past three decades, knows that the Iranian regime has practically begun what

Before answering this question, I find it necessary to address a more pressing one, especially in light of many observers talking about the haste of the United States and Israel in deciding on war, and Macron's statements calling for a ceasefire.

Consequently, Washington, supported by Israel, decided that war was the only option on the table to reshape the Middle East. This leads to the logical question: What are the objectives of the United States and Israel in this war?

Ultimately, the negotiations reached a deadlock, with Iran seeking to buy more time without offering any concessions. Meanwhile, the American side became convinced that the current Iranian leadership was not a viable partner for negotiations.

As expected, Tehran refused to discuss three of these issues and agreed to limited discussions on the nuclear program, while reiterating that it was not prepared to halt their nuclear program or hand over their highly enriched uranium.

Fourth, the internal situation in Iran: Washington stressed the need for Tehran to stop the violence against protesters and support a peaceful path toward democracy.

Third, the issue of Iranian-backed militias in the region: Washington demanded that Tehran cease its support for these militias.

Second, the ballistic missile program: Washington demanded that Iran halt the development of the program and limit the range of its missile stockpiles to 300 km.

First, the nuclear program: Washington demanded that Tehran hand over its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, estimated at 400 kg, and cease all uranium enrichment activities.

outbreak of popular protests in Iran, which the regime met with brutal violence. The American conditions were organized around four main issues.

About a month before the start of the current war, the Trump administration began a new round of negotiations with the Iranian side. During these talks, American negotiators presented a set of conditions aimed to ease tensions that had escalated significantly following the

end the conflict in the Middle East and establish lasting peace. This has been reflected in frequent visits by Israeli officials, most notably Netanyahu, to Washington.