US Strategy in Iran and Lebanon Faces Similar Setbacks, Analysts Claim

According to the International Desk of Webangah News Agency, the current strategy employed by the Israeli regime in Lebanon is characterized by systematic destruction and repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement. Lebanon is witnessing a conflict that utilizes diverse methods and tools, with variations emerging only in the tactical shifts of its wartime approach over different periods.

Meanwhile, the United States, despite its emphasis on avoiding a full-scale conflict, is pursuing a strategy centered on periodic military strikes to maintain pressure on Iran. The core American concept involves containing a comprehensive war while employing economic sanctions to exert military and financial pressure, thereby imposing ongoing costs on Tehran.

Obstacles and Considerations for the American Strategy in the Region

American strategists believe that the current regional situation favors Iran, and Tehran is likely to continue its attrition strategy. This approach would be used to rebuild its damaged capabilities after periods of conflict.

Conversely, the Trump administration is compelled to adopt a clear strategy, aligning with its principal strategic ally, the Israeli regime. This is intended to increase political and operational costs for Iran, forcing it to relinquish its leverage, most notably control over the Strait of Hormuz.

The key components of the American strategy in the region include:

• Prioritizing the protection of American forces and implementing measures to prevent drone and missile attacks.
• Asserting that Iran has no control over the Strait of Hormuz along the Omani coast and emphasizing that freedom of navigation must be restored promptly within the existing maritime traffic separation system. Enhancing allied protection of the alternative southern route along the Omani coast, alongside expanding intelligence sharing and joint planning with the Israeli regime, are other existing priorities.
• Targeting critical military infrastructure through the imposition of stringent secondary sanctions.

The United States pursued this policy concurrently with targeting radars and missile platforms on Iran’s coast adjacent to the Strait of Hormuz. However, despite these efforts, it has failed to prevent Iranian attacks in the Strait and strikes against American bases in the region. In response to these circumstances, the Americans initiated the evacuation of their bases in the Persian Gulf and attempted to redeploy to distant and undisclosed locations. However, Iran thwarted these actions through its operations, successfully striking targets even where American marines were stationed at ‘Camp Tatin’ in Jordan.

Trump’s statements emphasize an effort to sow discord among Iranian politicians, diplomats, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The United States alleges that Iranians lack a unified decision-making process and are experiencing division and fragmentation. Through these assertions, a psychological and propaganda war is being waged against the Iranian people. The objective of this strategy is to pressure Iran, conduct further attacks on civilians, including the alleged targeting of women and children at a wedding ceremony, increase the cost of resistance for both the Iranian system and its people, and foment internal discord and division.

Lebanon Faces a Similar Situation

An examination of the situation in Lebanon reveals a similar approach. On one hand, the Israeli regime in Lebanon is constrained by the deterrence of the Lebanese resistance. On the other hand, it faces the power of Iran and its credible promise of intervention should red lines be crossed. Consequently, Tel Aviv is exploiting the space created by the Lebanese government’s engagement in unproductive settlement negotiations. This is intended to increase the cost of resistance by destroying villages and perpetuating the displacement of people, thereby creating friction between the resistance and its surrounding environment. The aim is to suggest that the resistance and its weaponry are the primary cause of these hardships and aggressions.

Al-Ahed concludes by stating that a similar approach based on containing the war and engaging in intermittent aggressions is evident, with the goal of pressuring the populace and the core of the resistance. This approach is pursued alongside the continuation of a blockade by targeting resistance service institutions, severing the connection between the resistance and its supporters, and intensifying psychological warfare, rumors, and sedition. However, the resistance, much like Iran, remains steadfast and possesses numerous surprises for any future conflict. Supporters of the resistance stand firm on all fronts, possessing sufficient awareness and insight for this path. They are united around their leaders and understand that this is a major existential struggle that permits no concessions to the enemy.