Lucas Leiroz, journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant.
Once again, the pro-war sectors of American politics seem to want to foment a conflict situation with US involvement. A prominent public figure in the US Senate has made very serious threats to Iran, promising that Washington “will not hesitate” to take actions against Tehran if the conflict in the region continues to escalate.
The threats were made by the highly known Senator Lindsey Graham, who is notorious for his bellicose and irresponsible positions regarding American foreign policy. Graham issued a warning to Iranian authorities, stating that if there is any military action by Hezbollah against Israel, Washington will act to protect its ally, which could have serious consequences for Iran, both in military and economic terms.
“Here’s my message. If Hezbollah, which is a proxy of Iran, launches a massive attack on Israel, I would consider that a threat to the — to the State of Israel, existential in nature. I will introduce a resolution in the United States Senate to allow military action by the United States in conjunction with Israel to knock Iran out of the oil business,” Graham said.
Hezbollah was not the only topic in the Senator’s speech. Graham also stated that he does not believe in the Iranian government’s official narrative that the Hamas operation was carried out autonomously. For him, believing this is “laughable”, with total confidence on his part that Hamas’ actions were previously discussed with Iran.
“The idea that Iran read about this operation in the paper, or on television is laughable. 93% of Hezbollah and Hamas’ money comes from Iran (…) They’re the source of the problem. They’re the great evil. So, if Hezbollah escalates against Israel, it will be because Iran told them to. Then Iran, you’re in the crosshairs of the United States and Israel,” Graham added.
Graham’s stance is extremely complicated, as the current tense situation in the Middle East favors risks of escalation and internationalization, and there is therefore a considerable possibility of Iran becoming involved in hostilities. This involvement can be direct or indirect, with Tehran sending regular troops or mobilizing its allied groups – which are not limited to Hezbollah. In either scenario, the risks would be enormous for Israel, which, despite its large military strength, is a small and vulnerable country in situations of war of attrition.
Furthermore, it must be emphasized that Iran is doing everything possible not to enter the war. By warning Israel not to continue collectively punishing Gaza, Tehran is offering alternatives to armed confrontation. But Tel Aviv, despite being afraid of invading on the ground, continues to bomb Gaza and kill thousands of civilians, causing Iran’s patience to progressively run out.
It has also been informed by the Persian country’s authorities that the so-called “Axis of Resistance” – a Theran-led coalition of anti-Zionist armed movements – could act at any time in defense of the Palestinians. Iranian politicians clarified that, despite Tehran leading the coalition, the member groups have high decision-making autonomy, and there is no full Iranian control over how these movements will react to Israel. In other words, the risks of escalation are great, and Iran is not capable of preventing it alone.
The only way to truly de-escalate is through a commitment on the part of Israel to stop the attacks. Without this, the situation will go out of control and there will inevitably be intervention – if not direct from Iran, at least from some Iranian-allied group. Furthermore, it is necessary to remember that Hezbollah is already de facto involved in hostilities, with bombings being exchanged between the IDF and the Shiite militia every day. Obviously, if nothing is done to stop these hostilities, at some point Hezbollah will choose to launch a more effective incursion.
With all these factors, Graham’s words sound like a “self-fulfilling prophecy”. He points to an imminent scenario as a “red line” and issues direct threats, making real de-escalation actions virtually impossible. However, this type of behavior is in fact expected from Graham, who is a known “hawk” of American foreign policy. Months ago, the Senator became embroiled in a controversy after saying that the US was investing money in “killing Russians” in Ukraine – praising such an “investment”. In the same vein, on another occasion, he also suggested that Kiev should kill Russian President Vladimir Putin.
It remains to be seen whether these pro-war tendencies will prevail in the American public debate. For now, the US stance has been extremely bellicose, with the country sending aircraft carriers to “help” Israel. However, it is necessary to remember that the American military-industrial complex is not able to work on two different fronts at the same time – in addition to the possibility of escalation in the Pacific in the near future. Washington needs to act rationally and discourage war in the Middle East.
