Israel has two new countries in its sights

US President Trump has entered a spiral over Iran. He is trying to manage crisis communication rather than war, with contradictory statements. Yet the trajectory has more or less taken shape: he wants to end this business as soon as possible by declaring victory. In the early days, he stated that the war would last 4-5 weeks. That period has now expired. With his statement yesterday morning, he asked the world public for another 2-3 weeks.

One reason for the war's prolongation is Iran's move regarding Hormuz. Hormuz has stuck in Trump's throat. There had been comments that he was considering various options, including a ground operation, to overcome this obstacle. However, no one, especially NATO, provided the expected support. Now he is saying, in effect, "We have achieved our goals. Hormuz is the responsibility of those oil fields."

So, if the Hormuz obstacle has been removed for Trump, why doesn't he end the war today? If we look at the ground… Given that Iran has not surrendered… He wants to declare his victory with a limited, targeted ground operation show that will break the perception of failure. There is also pressure from Israel. Israel needs to buy time.

NETANYAHU SAID 'I WILL NOT STOP'

This war was started by Israel. While making Trump a target, Israel is pursuing its own agenda in the background. It is reported that when a possibility of negotiation arose, Netanyahu said, "Even if you make a ceasefire, I will not stop in Lebanon." He is seeking to depopulate southern Lebanon and annex it (we had written that he wants to unite southern Lebanon and southern Syria. See: Israel seeks to seize land from two countries, March 20). However, there are significant concerns and analyses that he will not want to stop here.

WHAT IS THE NEXT TARGET?

It is now being discussed more openly that Israel's linked targets are as follows: One. The expulsion of the Palestinian population to Egypt in order to annex Gaza. This had come to the agenda before, and Sisi rejected the proposal by implying and threatening that military tension could arise. In fact, the Egyptian army had shown a presence in Sinai. With the Gaza ceasefire, this proposal turned into "voluntary exile," but Israel has not given up. It is said that Tel Aviv is willing to risk a military confrontation with Cairo to pressure the Egyptian administration (it can be argued that Egypt put forward the idea of an "Arab NATO" for this reason). Two. By applying the same policy in the West Bank, they want to expel the Palestinians there to Jordan as well. Jordan is also resisting this. It is assessed that Israel is willing to risk a military confrontation with Jordan as well. Three. We have highlighted the Lebanon-Syria line. The occupation has begun in Lebanon. Regarding Syria, Israel is seen trying to provoke an uprising in Suwayda, and within this scope, arming the Druze Hijri group (in the background, Ankara has dialogue with other Druze groups that are uncomfortable with Israel).

PAY ATTENTION TO THE INTENSIFICATION IN ERBIL

Four. The SDG was an entity that Israel invested in. However, due to the determined stance of Damascus and Ankara, integrated with the positive position of the US, a path toward integration has been entered. It is said that precisely during this process, Israel turned to separatist groups in Iran and began arming these groups four months before February 28 (we have previously written that the capacity of these groups is not strong. See: Background war notes from Iran, March 10). Due to Ankara's contacts with regional actors (Israel was also directly warned about PJAK) and the positive attitude of Barzani and Talabani, there has been no activity there yet.

Nevertheless… There are comments that Israel continues its "softening" attacks in the region west of Iran, that some separatist groups are trying to cross the border, that in the event of a possible ground operation there could also be activity in this region, that regime opponents are trying to turn Erbil into a logistics hub… That Iran has noticed this and therefore targeted Nechirvan Barzani's residence (President Erdoğan called Barzani to wish him well).

IS NATO A PAPER TIGER?

In the final analysis, these scenarios represent Israel's desire. But wanting and achieving results are different things. Israel desires it. But can it do it? The same applies to Trump's stance on NATO. Trump is very angry because he could not use NATO power in Iran. He said he is seriously considering leaving NATO.

It is no secret that Washington seeks to reduce its responsibility in NATO and share the leadership role and cost, especially with Germany, among other members. For this reason, European countries think, "Even if the US leaves NATO, let us preserve this institutional structure and ensure Europe's security against Russia and other threats through NATO." So these debates are not new. But there is another new situation.

THE IMPORTANCE OF NATO WILL INCREASE

Looking with the naked eye, the Iran war has revealed an important reality: US operational capacity is dependent on its allies' logistics lines, bases, air defense-radar systems, aerial refueling capacity, and, if necessary, ground forces. Otherwise, Trump would not have sought help from his allies for Hormuz. He would have handled Iran and Hormuz on his own. But he cannot. The US President is angry because this support did not come.

Contrary to popular belief, the Iran war will increase the importance of NATO, alliances, and coalitions. I think Ankara has realized this reality. The show of force in the exercise held in recent months was a sign of this. The initiative to establish a NATO Multinational Corps Headquarters, which came to the agenda upon Ankara's request, is also related to this. Decision-makers must be thinking, "If NATO's importance is going to increase, let us shape the direction."

Despite this picture… Trump may want to give up on NATO and the infrastructure it provides. But would the US want to give it up? If it does… Good luck in the global power struggle with China.