He had proposed himself as a President of peace and for peace, as the one who would resolve the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in just twenty-four hours. Since the day of his proclamation, Donald Trump, mind you, twenty-four hours have passed, and on the war level, nothing seems to have changed. In the meantime, after the manifestation of the intention to transform Gaza into a tourist resort (almost as if to imply the imminent construction of a renewed role for the US presence there), the conflict in the Middle East seems to have intensified. And the United States of America, finally, according to what the media reports, seems to have chosen to officially enter the conflict. At least that's what it seems, if only we consider that, in the night between Saturday and Sunday, Donald Trump announced the attack on three nuclear sites of the Islamic Republic (those of Fordow and Esfahan), which were destroyed as a result. The Iranian reaction was very harsh, at least on a verbal level: "We will reduce the US bases in the Middle East to ashes". Such, and of such substance, would appear to have been the threat posed by the Pasdaran.

What position will the various Western national governments and the European Union as a whole, which has immediately called for a return to dialogue and negotiation, decide to take? And Russia and China? After all, they have condemned, as we seem to learn from the media, the American raids in Iran. Also because the concrete military support offered by the United States to the Israeli Prime Minister, in fact, takes on (or at least this is what it would seem) all the characteristics of an effective deployment.

Hazard a prediction as close as possible to the near future reality, beyond the mere interpretative exercise on the immediate impact of the military action carried out on the orders of Donald Trump, seems almost useless. By now "the die is cast", like it or not. The war between Israel and Iran (and now the United States it would seem) shows no signs of abating, and the gravity of the circumstances that have recently overlapped with the US attack represent a stigma for the Arab countries, especially those of the Gulf, with respect to which it will affect, even if it is not yet clear how, their future and that of the entire Middle East.

Paradoxically, if a weakened Iran could ideally constitute a factor of serious destabilization for the entire Gulf region/area, however, no less impactful would be (the conditional is imposed) also the risk that Israel, for its part, and strong in the support received, would determine in the sense of manifesting its "desiderata" in a more aggressive way. So it seems very difficult not to ask if, and how, Israel and Iran, especially after the probably unexpected intervention of the United States, will be able to build, if it is ever possible, a path of new balances capable of averting an implementation of military operations. Especially when one wants to consider that if Israel appears capable of obtaining greater success on the military level, however Iran, for its part, would seem to be characterized by its consistency in ideological and political solidity.

If Donald Trump's goal was to force the Islamic Republic to surrender unconditionally, he may have distanced himself from this objective with his military action. What would then be the effect of US interventionism in a context with undefined contours, in the minds of Donald Trump, and therefore of the Israeli Prime Minister? Simply (so to speak) and purely a so-called "regime change" which, in truth, would seem to represent the objective of Netanyahu's offensive? And if that were the case, what could arise from those ashes? The consequences, at this stage, appear unimaginable, and negotiation would seem to be the only viable option. It would be essential to assert only the reasons for peace.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata