This panel discussion between four experts focused on the potential escalation of Iran-Israel conflict and its implications for regional stability, with a specific emphasis on Iraq’s vulnerable position. Discussions focused on the United States role, Israel’s military strategy, Iran’s nuclear program, and the potential regional consequences of a weakened Iran. The panel also touched on the challenges faced by Iraq and other regional actors in navigating the complex geopolitical landscape, as well as the long-term implications for security and stability in the Middle East.
Middle East Escalation Threat
Dlawer Ala’Aldeen, President of the Erbil-based Middle East Research Institute (MERI), framed the discussion and focused minds on the threat of escalation in the Middle East, particularly concerning the United States’ possible involvement in attacking Iran’s nuclear installation and its potential impact on Iraq and the Kurdistan Region. He highlighted Iraq’s vulnerability to being caught between a US ally and Iran-allied non-state actors in Iraq, emphasizing the need to study the implications of such an escalation.
US and Israeli Strategies
Ala’Aldeen suggested that the US might not be directly involved for now, but has all along indirectly supported Israel from the background, allowing the conflict to potentially drag on for a longer period. But the key questions are whether the US will join the attacks on Iran and how different are the US and Israeli objectives.
Kenneth Pollack, the Vice President of the Washington-based Middle East Institute, shared insights on President Trump’s decision-making process, noting that while Trump may be leaning towards intervention, no final decision has been made. He pointed out that Trump’s style of making last-minute decisions and his recent criticism of Tucker Carlson, a prominent MAGA ally, could be indicators of his thinking on the issue. He noted that President Trump’s initial inclination to support Israel was tempered by internal political pressures, particularly from a neo-isolationist faction within his constituency.
Pollack explained that both Israel and Iran are currently engaging in discreet actions, focusing on specific targets rather than broader regional escalation. According to Pollack, the US and Israel emphasise the strategic importance of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities, particularly the Fordo site, and preventing Iranian reconstitution of its nuclear program, which would be the focus of any American involvement rather than just supporting Israel’s current operations.
Regime Change is Not on the Agenda
Pollack stressed that Israel is not currently aiming for regime change in Iran. He explained that Israel’s military campaign in Iran is focused on destroying the nuclear program and military infrastructure, rather than pursuing regime change or targeting civilian assets. He noted that the Israelis are being deliberate in their strikes, sending signals to the Iranian regime to stop their attacks on Israeli cities. Pollack expressed concern that the US administration might not fully understand the Israeli strategy and could potentially undermine it.
According to Aniseh Bissari Tabrizi, a Senior Analyst at the Abu-Dhabi based Control Risks,
while the Iranian population remains resilient and continues daily life despite disruptions, there is concern about regime change being a potential agenda for the US and Israel. She questioned the feasibility of such an outcome in Iran, noting a lack of internal readiness and support for such a transition.
Ala’Aldeen reminded the audience that regime change is not the right academic term, but regime collapse or internal coups might be more descriptive. Even then, he added, regime collapse is very unlikely and extremely difficult in the absence of external invasion or powerful opposition, citing historical examples (the Ba’ath regime as a case in point) and the strength of Iran’s existing security institutions.
Iran’s Resilience Amid Regime Tensions
Ala’Aldeen noted that Iran’s external support from countries like Russia and China is limited, and the country is relatively isolated, but asked Tabrizi for her analysis of the internal dynamics. Tabrizi mentioned that the Iranian population’s fear of instability and civil rights issues post-regime change is a significant concern. She provided context on the negotiation timeline and Iranian perspective, explaining that the Iranians viewed the negotiation process as legitimate despite the eventual military escalation. Tabrizi highlighted that the Iranian regime is unlikely to surrender unconditionally and may escalate further if US involvement increases, potentially targeting US interests.
Iraq’s Stability Amid Regional Conflict
Ala’Aldeen discussed the implications of the ongoing conflict on Iraq, noting that the country is in a delicate position between powerful regional actors. The Iraqi government has so far exercised restraint, issued public statements but done little to get involved. He then invited other speakers to offer policy recommendations for the Iraqi and Kurdistan Regional Governments. Pollack was first to emphasize the need for Iraq and the Kurdistan region to stay uninvolved, to avoid becoming targets.
According to Renad Mansour, a Senior Research Fellow at the London-based Chatham House, since October 7th 2023, Iraq has managed to stay insulated from the regional conflict, prioritizing stability and development over ideological connections to resistance. The government, dominated by the Shia elite, focuses on maintaining power and stability, especially in an election year, and has pursued a multi-aligned foreign policy. While certain armed groups may have conflicting interests, the general policy across the Shia establishment is to prioritize stability. The region is currently in a state of survival mode, with economic and security concerns overshadowing any group’s control.
Mansour emphasized that Baghdad’s fragmented government faces significant challenges in navigating these relationships. He suggested that Iraq’s best course of action is to wait and see while working with Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who have been pushing for peace with Iran.
Ala’Aldeen addressed questions about the Iraqi elections and potential regional involvement in the conflict, expressing uncertainty about the elections’ viability if the conflict prolongs.
Middle East Strategic Shifts
Ala’Aldeen asked about the broader region-wide implications of a potentially weaker Iran, from Yemen to the Levant, referring to the need to consider long-term realignment and security architecture in the region.
Pollack agreed and referred to the potential transformation of the Middle East following the current war, emphasizing the need to focus on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He highlighted the obvious weakening of Iran’s influence across the region, including in Lebanon, Syria, and with the Houthis. Pollack argued against arms control agreements with Iran, advocating instead for a comprehensive approach to counter the axis of resistance. He also predicted that the war could strain relations between Israel and moderate Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia, potentially making progress on the Palestinian issue more challenging.
Mansour discussed the implications of a weakened Iran on its allies in Iraq, noting potential vacuums but also the limitations of external actors in shaping Iraqi politics. Tabrizi expressed concerns about the regional situation, particularly regarding Iran and Israel’s relationship with Gulf countries. She argued that a weaker Iran could be more dangerous in the long term.