Has Iran Inherited Syria’s Role at the Shebaa Farms ‘Mailbox’?

Israeli forces fire artillery from their position on the border with Lebanon after a barrage of rockets were fired from Lebanon, Friday, Aug. 6, 2021. (AP)
Israeli forces fire artillery from their position on the border with Lebanon after a barrage of rockets were fired from Lebanon, Friday, Aug. 6, 2021. (AP)
TT

Has Iran Inherited Syria’s Role at the Shebaa Farms ‘Mailbox’?

Israeli forces fire artillery from their position on the border with Lebanon after a barrage of rockets were fired from Lebanon, Friday, Aug. 6, 2021. (AP)
Israeli forces fire artillery from their position on the border with Lebanon after a barrage of rockets were fired from Lebanon, Friday, Aug. 6, 2021. (AP)

In July 2001 Hezbollah struck the position of an Israeli radar. The move was an act of retaliation to Tel Aviv’s attack on a Syrian military radar in Lebanon’s eastern Bekaa Valley region. That attack was, in turn, a response to Hezbollah’s shelling of positions in the disputed Israeli-occupied Shebaa Farms region.

Twenty years later, the Iran-backed party struck an open area in the Shebaa Farms and Israel retaliated with artillery fire. The attacks were a sign of their commitment to the “rules of engagement” in place since 2006 after testing how much they can be changed and after southern Lebanon has become tied to the “shadow war” playing out between Israel and Iran on land and at sea.

How has the “southern front” become more connected to Tehran than to Damascus? What do the Shebaa Farms have to do with the Golan Heights? Is there a connection between the escalation in Syria’s Daraa and the test in southern Lebanon?

After he became prime minister in 2001, Israel’s Arial Sharon attempted to change the “rules of the game” in Lebanon. He retaliated to Hezbollah attacks by ordering raids on Syrian forces in Lebanon – a first since 1982. Previously, such attacks were limited to Lebanese targets.

At the time, Damascus was in control and averted any direct confrontation with Israel. That role was relegated to Hezbollah. All sides, therefore, conveyed messages through the Shebaa Farms that acted as a form of “mailbox” after Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000. The new rules were: An Israeli radar in return for a Syrian one, with Hezbollah executing the order.

Several developments have since taken place in Lebanon, Syria and the region that have altered this equation:

One: After the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000, Damascus declared that Shebaa was Lebanese territory occupied by Israel. The United Nations, however, says that it is in fact Syrian territory that has been occupied since 1967. Then Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa informed then UN chief Kofi Annan that Syria views the territory as Lebanese, granting Hezbollah free reign to “resist” Israeli occupation.

Two: The death of Syrian president Hafez Assad in June 2000 and his son Bashar’s assuming of power changed the equation between Damascus and Hezbollah. When paying his respects at Hafez’s grave in al-Qardaha in 2001, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah vowed to “liberate the Shebaa Farms.”

Three: The Syrian military withdrawal from Lebanon in April 2005. The assassination of Lebanese former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005 prompted the withdrawal. Ahead of the pullout, Hezbollah staged a “loyalty to Syria” march. Soon after, the party would begin to hold greater sway in Lebanon, while Iran’s influence in the region would outmatch Syria’s and its traditional allies.

Four: Syria and Israel, through American mediation, were on the verge of signing of a peace deal in late February 2011, just days before the eruption of the Syrian protests. American mediator Frederic Hof had drafted the deal that would include Damascus severing “military ties” with Iran and Hezbollah and “neutralizing” any threat to Israel. In return, Syria would reclaim the Golan Heights according to the June 4, 1967 border.

At the time, Hof recalled that Bashar had informed him that the Shebaa Farms were Syrian territory, not Lebanese. Bashar falsely predicted that Lebanon would soon follow in striking peace with Israel should Syria make a similar deal. Such a move would have inevitably impacted Iran and Hezbollah’s influence.

Five: The eruption of anti-regime protests in Syria in March 2011 gave way to Hezbollah and Iran’s eventual intervention in the country to defend their ally in Damascus. They would later reinforce their military presence in various Syrian regions, especially the south. The Golan Heights would become “tied” to other Iranian “fronts” in the Middle East.

Six: Russia intervened militarily in Syrian in September 2015 to support the regime and help it reclaim territory after it was on the brink of collapse. Syria was therefore, turned into a Russian base and starting point for its expansion in the Middle East. Moscow would sponsor various deals and settlements, including one in mid-2018 that called for Iran and its allies to pull out from the South and the area bordering the Golan.

Seven: Israel would soon begin carrying out raids against Iranian and Hezbollah positions in Syria in an attempt to impose “red lines” that include preventing Iran from establishing military bases, preventing the delivery of precision missiles to Hezbollah and preventing Tehran and the party’s military entrenchment in the Golan. The United States in turn entrenched itself in the al-Tanf base on the border between Syria, Jordan and Iraq in an attempt to block the Tehran-Damascus-Beirut route. In 2020, Israel announced that it had carried out over 50 air strikes against Syrian targets and fired over 500 projectiles and rockets.

Eight: Syria transformed into a “mailbox” between Iran and Israel after the assassination of Jihad Mughnieh, the son of prominent Hezbollah operative Imad. Jihad was killed by an Israeli strike on the Golan Heights in early 2015. The ensuing escalation was “limited and agreed” to be restricted to the Shebaa Farms in line with the “rules of the game” that had been in place after the July 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel.

In February 2018, Syrian air defenses shot down an Israeli F-16 jet in retaliation to Israeli strikes that were prompted by an Iranian drone’s breach of Israeli airspace. Tel Aviv responded by carrying raids against Syrian and Iranian positions. That was the first time that Israel and Iran directly confronted each other since the 1979 Iranian revolution. It also marked the widest Israeli attack against Syrian forces since Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

Golan had by now become one of the arenas where retaliations can play out. At the time, an Iranian Mahan Air jet flew over the al-Tanf base to test the American response. An American F-15 flew very close to the Iranian aircraft and shots were fired from Syria Quneitra towards the Golan, prompting Israeli helicopter fire.

Nine: For the first time, Russia began to detail Israeli strikes on Iranian and Hezbollah positions in Syria. At the same time, reports said Damascus had received a new anti-aircraft defense system that would protect Syria against Israeli strikes. Simultaneously, Russia was exerting efforts to meet its commitments in the deal on southern Syria, specifically in Daraa, amid complaints from Jordan, Israel and the US over Iranian attempts to advance in the area.

Ten: Iranian sources confirmed the July 29 drone attack on an Israeli tanker in the Gulf of Oman that left a Briton and Romanian dead. This marked the first escalation of its kind between Israel and Iran. The drone attack was retaliation to Israeli raids in June on central Syria that killed senior members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and Hezbollah.

Those attacks were followed up last week with rocket fire from southern Lebanon on northern Israel, not the Shebaa Farms nor the Golan. Israel consequently fired back with air strikes, not artillery fire, on Lebanon – the first such attacks since 2006.

The two sides would soon, however, return to limiting their retaliatory attacks to Shebaa – the old mailbox. This time around, the messages were being exchanged between Tel Aviv and Tehran that are waging both a “shadow” and direct war. As it stands, new Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett is unhappy with the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear deal, while Iran’s new President Ebrahim Raisi is keen on burnishing his credentials on the Arab “fronts”.



NATO's Ability to Deter Russia Has Taken a Hit with Trans-Atlantic Infighting

A photo shows a residential area near the airport at the city of Nuuk, western Greenland, with a slightly snow covered mountain in the background, on January 28, 2026. (AFP)
A photo shows a residential area near the airport at the city of Nuuk, western Greenland, with a slightly snow covered mountain in the background, on January 28, 2026. (AFP)
TT

NATO's Ability to Deter Russia Has Taken a Hit with Trans-Atlantic Infighting

A photo shows a residential area near the airport at the city of Nuuk, western Greenland, with a slightly snow covered mountain in the background, on January 28, 2026. (AFP)
A photo shows a residential area near the airport at the city of Nuuk, western Greenland, with a slightly snow covered mountain in the background, on January 28, 2026. (AFP)

European allies and Canada are pouring billions of dollars into helping Ukraine, and they have pledged to massively boost their budgets to defend their territories.

But despite those efforts, NATO’s credibility as a unified force under US leadership has taken a huge hit over the past year as trust within the 32-nation military organization dissolved.

The rift has been most glaring over U.S. President Donald Trump's repeated threats to seize Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark. More recently, Trump's disparaging remarks about his NATO allies' troops in Afghanistan drew another outcry.

While the heat on Greenland has subsided for now, the infighting has seriously undercut the ability of the world’s biggest security alliance to deter adversaries, analysts say.

“The episode matters because it crossed a line that cannot be uncrossed,” Sophia Besch from the Carnegie Europe think tank said in a report on the Greenland crisis. “Even without force or sanctions, that breach weakens the alliance in a lasting way.”

The tensions haven’t gone unnoticed in Russia, NATO’s biggest threat.

Any deterrence of Russia relies on ensuring that President Vladimir Putin is convinced that NATO will retaliate should he expand his war beyond Ukraine. Right now, that does not seem to be the case.

“It’s a major upheaval for Europe, and we are watching it,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted last week.

Filling up the bucket

Criticized by US leaders for decades over low defense spending, and lashed relentlessly under Trump, European allies and Canada agreed in July to significantly up their game and start investing 5% of their gross domestic product on defense.

The pledge was aimed at taking the whip out of Trump's hand. The allies would spend as much of their economic output on core defense as the United States — around 3.5% of GDP — by 2035, plus a further 1.5% on security-related projects like upgrading bridges, air and seaports.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has hailed those pledges as a sign of NATO’s robust health and military might. He recently said that “fundamentally thanks to Donald J. Trump, NATO is stronger than it ever was.”

Though a big part of his job is to ensure that Trump does not pull the US out of NATO, as Trump has occasionally threatened, his flattery of the American leader has sometimes raised concern. Rutte has pointedly refused to speak about the rift over Greenland.

Article 5 at stake

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 to counter the security threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and its deterrence is underpinned by a strong American troop presence in Europe.

The alliance is built on the political pledge that an attack on one ally must be met with a response from them all — the collective security guarantee enshrined in Article 5 of its rule book.

It hinges on the belief that the territories of all 32 allies must remain inviolate. Trump’s designs on Greenland attack that very principle, even though Article 5 does not apply in internal disputes because it can only be triggered unanimously.

“Instead of strengthening our alliances, threats against Greenland and NATO are undermining America’s own interests,” two US senators, Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Republican Lisa Murkowski, wrote in a New York Times op-ed.

“Suggestions that the United States would seize or coerce allies to sell territory do not project strength. They signal unpredictability, weaken deterrence and hand our adversaries exactly what they want: proof that democratic alliances are fragile and unreliable,” they said.

Even before Trump escalated his threats to seize control of Greenland, his European allies were never entirely convinced that he would defend them should they come under attack.

Trump has said that he doesn’t believe the allies would help him either, and he recently drew more anger when he questioned the role of European and Canadian troops who fought and died alongside Americans in Afghanistan. The president later partially reversed his remarks.

In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissed criticism that Trump has undermined the alliance.

“The stronger our partners are in NATO, the more flexibility the United States will have to secure our interests in different parts of the world,” he said. “That’s not an abandonment of NATO. That is a reality of the 21st century and a world that’s changing now.”

A Russia not easily deterred

Despite NATO’s talk of increased spending, Moscow seems undeterred. The EU's foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said this week that “it has become painfully clear that Russia will remain a major security threat for the long term.”

“We are fending off cyberattacks, sabotage against critical infrastructure, foreign interference and information manipulation, military intimidation, territorial threats and political meddling,” she said Wednesday.

Officials across Europe have reported acts of sabotage and mysterious drone flights over airports and military bases. Identifying the culprits is difficult, and Russia denies responsibility.

In a year-end address, Rutte warned that Europe is at imminent risk.

“Russia has brought war back to Europe, and we must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents or great-grandparents endured,” he said.

Meanwhile in Russia, Lavrov said the dispute over Greenland heralded a “deep crisis” for NATO.

“It was hard to imagine before that such a thing could happen,” Lavrov told reporters, as he contemplated the possibility that “one NATO member is going to attack another NATO member.”

Russian state media mocked Europe's “impotent rage” over Trump's designs on Greenland, and Putin's presidential envoy declared that “trans-Atlantic unity is over.”

Doubt about US troops

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is due to meet with his counterparts at NATO on Feb. 12. A year ago, he startled the allies by warning that America’s security priorities lie elsewhere and that Europe must look after itself now.

Security in the Arctic region, where Greenland lies, will be high on the agenda. It’s unclear whether Hegseth will announce a new drawdown of US troops in Europe, who are central to NATO’s deterrence.

Lack of clarity about this has also fueled doubt about the US commitment to its allies. In October, NATO learned that up to 1,500 American troops would be withdrawn from an area bordering Ukraine, angering ally Romania.

A report from the European Union Institute for Security Studies warned last week that although US troops are unlikely to vanish overnight, doubts about US commitment to European security means “the deterrence edifice becomes shakier.”

“Europe is being forced to confront a harsher reality,” wrote the authors, Veronica Anghel and Giuseppe Spatafora. “Adversaries start believing they can probe, sabotage and escalate without triggering a unified response.”


A Bullet Shattered Her Knee. Now a Gaza Teen's Chances of Walking Depend on Rafah Border Crossing

Islam Saleh, who was injured in her left leg in an Israeli strike on a school shelter in Jabalia in 2024, sits in a wheelchair inside her family’s tent in Zawaida, Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026, as she awaits permission to travel outside Gaza for treatment. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana)
Islam Saleh, who was injured in her left leg in an Israeli strike on a school shelter in Jabalia in 2024, sits in a wheelchair inside her family’s tent in Zawaida, Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026, as she awaits permission to travel outside Gaza for treatment. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana)
TT

A Bullet Shattered Her Knee. Now a Gaza Teen's Chances of Walking Depend on Rafah Border Crossing

Islam Saleh, who was injured in her left leg in an Israeli strike on a school shelter in Jabalia in 2024, sits in a wheelchair inside her family’s tent in Zawaida, Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026, as she awaits permission to travel outside Gaza for treatment. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana)
Islam Saleh, who was injured in her left leg in an Israeli strike on a school shelter in Jabalia in 2024, sits in a wheelchair inside her family’s tent in Zawaida, Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026, as she awaits permission to travel outside Gaza for treatment. (AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana)

Rimas Abu Lehia was wounded five months ago when Israeli troops opened fired toward a crowd of hungry people mobbing an aid truck for food in Gaza and a bullet shattered the 15-year-old Palestinian girl's left knee.

Now her best chance of walking again is surgery abroad. She is on a long list of more than 20,000 Palestinians, including 4,500 children, who have been waiting — some more than a year — for evacuation to get treatment for war wounds or chronic medical conditions, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, The AP news reported.

Their hopes hinge on the reopening of the crucial Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt, a key point under the nearly 4-month-old ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Israel has announced the crossing would open in both directions on Sunday.

The Israeli military body in charge of coordinating aid to Gaza said Friday that “limited movement of people only” would be allowed. Earlier, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had said Israel will allow 50 patients a day to leave; others have spoken of up to 150 a day.

That's a large jump from about 25 patients a week allowed to leave since the ceasefire began, according to UN figures. But it would still take anywhere from 130 to 400 days of crossings to get everyone in need out.

Abu Lehia said her life depends on the crossing opening.

“I wish I didn’t have to sit in this chair,” she said, crying as she pointed at the wheelchair she relies on to move. “I need help to stand, to dress, to go to the bathroom.”

Evacuations are critical as Gaza hospitals are decimated Israel’s campaign in Gaza after the Hamas October 2023 attack on southern Israel that triggered the war has decimated the territory’s health sector — the few hospitals still working were overwhelmed by casualties. There are shortages of medical supplies and Israel has restricted aid entry.

Hospitals are unable to perform complicated surgeries for many of the wounded, including thousands of amputees, or treat many chronic conditions. Gaza’s single specialized cancer hospital shut down early in the war, and Israeli troops blew it up in early 2025. Without giving evidence, the military said Hamas militants were using it, though it was located in an area under Israeli control for most of the war.

More than 10,000 patients have left Gaza for treatment abroad since the war began, according to the World Health Organization.

After Israeli troops seized and closed the Rafah crossing in May 2024 and until the ceasefire, only around 17 patients a week were evacuated from Gaza, except for a brief surge of more than 200 patients a week during a two-month ceasefire in early 2025, according to WHO figures.

About 440 of those seeking evacuation have life-threatening injuries or diseases, according to the Health Ministry. More than 1,200 patients have died while waiting for evacuation, the ministry said Tuesday.

A UN official said one reason for the slow pace of evacuations has been that many countries are reluctant to accept the patients because Israel would not guarantee they would be allowed to return to the Gaza Strip. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue. The majority of evacuees have gone to Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Türkiye.

He said it wasn't clear if that would change with Rafah's opening. Even with "daily or almost daily evacuations,” he said, the number is not very high. Also, Israel has said it will only allow around 50 Palestinians a day to enter Gaza while tens of thousands of Palestinians hope to go back.

Israel has also banned sending patients to hospitals in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem since the war began, the official said — a move that cut off what was previously the main outlet for Palestinians needing treatment unavailable in Gaza.

Five human rights groups have petitioned Israel’s High Court of Justice to remove the ban. The court has not ruled. Still, one cancer patient in Gaza was allowed to travel to the West Bank for treatment on Jan. 11, after the Jerusalem District Court accepted a petition in his case by the Israeli rights group Gisha.

Thousands of cancer patients need evacuation Gaza has more than 11,000 cancer patients and some 75% of the necessary chemotherapy drugs are not available, the Health Ministry said. At least 4,000 cancer patients need urgent treatment abroad, it added.

Ahmed Barham, a 22-year-old university student, has been battling leukemia. He underwent two lymph node removal surgeries in June but the disease is continuing to spread “at an alarming rate,” his father, Mohamed Barham, said.

“There is no treatment available here," the elder Barham said.

His son, who has lost 35 kilograms (77 pounds), got on the urgent list for referral abroad this past week but still doesn’t have a confirmation of travel.

“My son is dying before my eyes,” the father said.

Desperate for Rafah to open Mahmoud Abu Ishaq, a 14-year-old, has been waiting for more than a year on the referral list for treatment abroad.

The roof of his family home collapsed when an Israeli strike hit nearby in the southern town of Beni Suhaila. The boy was injured and suffered a retinal detachment.

“Now he is completely blind,” his father, Fawaz Abu Ishaq said. “We are waiting for the crossing to open.”

Abu Lehia was wounded in August, when she went out from her family tent in the southern city of Khan Younis, looking for her younger brother, Muhannad, she told The Associated Press. The boy had gone out earlier that morning, hoping to get some food off entering aid trucks.

At the time, when Gaza was near famine, large crowds regularly waited for trucks and pulled food boxes off them, and Israeli troops often opened fire on the crowds. The Israeli military said its forces were firing warning shots, but hundreds were killed over the course of several months, according to Gaza health officials.

When Abu Lehia arrived at the edge of a military-held zone from which the trucks were passing, dozens of people were fleeing as Israeli troops fired. A bullet hit Abu Lehia in the knee, and she fell to the ground screaming, she said.

At the nearby Nasser Hospital, she underwent multiple surgeries, but they were unable to repair her knee. Doctors told her she needs knee replacement surgery outside Gaza.

Officials told the family last month that she would be evacuated in January. But so far nothing has happened, said her father, Sarhan Abu Lehia.

“Her condition is getting worse day by day,” he said. “She sits alone and cries.”


How Far Will He Go? Trump’s Options for US Action Against Iran

An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)
An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)
TT

How Far Will He Go? Trump’s Options for US Action Against Iran

An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)
An Iranian woman walks next to an anti-US mural in Tehran, Iran, 29 January 2026. (EPA)

US President Donald Trump has threatened military action against Iran over its crackdown on protesters, while still for now appearing to leave the door open for negotiations over the country’s controversial nuclear program.

But should Trump, after weeks of American threats and counter-threats from Tehran, finally decide to order military action after already sending a US aircraft carrier to the region, he faces another dilemma over what form the intervention should take.

Such action could replicate American strikes during Israel's June war against the country, enforce economic strangulation by targeting the energy sector or amount to a bid to replace the theocratic system under supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

- Venezuela economic pressure scenario

Trump's relatively cautious stance so far has sparked speculation he could target Iranian energy infrastructure and squeeze its oil exports, mimicking a strategy Washington used over Venezuela.

This policy earlier this month led to the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, with Trump then working with the remnants of his former administration.

The US naval group in Middle East waters could look to block "dark fleet vessels" carrying Iranian oil and put pressure on Iran's oil exports, said Farzan Sabet, managing researcher of the Sanctions and Sustainable Peace Hub at the Geneva Graduate Institute.

"And that pressure can be gradual, similar to what we saw in Venezuela. It could play out over days, weeks, months, it's hard to foresee, but possibly longer," he said, while acknowledging that Trump was playing "his cards very close to his chest".

The naval group, repeatedly described as an "armada" by Trump, consists of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and its more than 80 aircraft, as well as its escort of three destroyers, equipped with anti-missile capabilities and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

- Strikes on military and IRGC targets

If Trump decides on a course of military action, prime targets would be bases of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and its youth militia, the Basij, which are accused by rights groups of taking a frontline role in the deadly crackdown on the protests that according to rights groups left thousands dead.

Using Tomahawk missiles and combat aircraft, the United States could strike positions of the Basij and the IRGC forces, "particularly those forces that participated and continue to participate in targeting Iranian protesters", said independent military researcher Eva J. Koulouriotis.

She said US intelligence, helped by Israel's Mossad spy agency, has "a clear picture" of those forces and their location nationwide.

"Such a strike would serve as a direct warning to the Iranian regime," she said.

During its June war against Tehran, Israel showed its deep intelligence penetration of Iran by killing senior security officials including the IRGC's chief and the armed forces chief of staff in targeted strikes based on location intelligence.

In a "harsh but measured strike", the United States could target "operations command and senior officers involved in mass killings carried out by the Iranian regime", she said.

- Massive strikes and regime change bid -

Iran's theocratic system has been in place since the 1979 revolution led by Khomeini that ousted the largely pro-Western shah.

Relations with the United States were cut in the wake of the hostage siege of the US embassy in Tehran that began that year and have remained severed ever since.

Under Khomeini, the revolution survived the war with Iraq in the 1980s. Since Khamenei took over in 1989, he has managed to keep the system in place despite economic sanctions and repeated protests.

As well as the so-called "armada", Washington already has a heavy deployment of military resources in the region with dozens of aircraft deployed at the air bases of Al Udeid in Qatar and Al Dhafra in the United Arab Emirates.

"The American objective is to destabilize the regime," said David Khalfa, co-founder of the Atlantic Middle East Forum (AMEF) think-tank.

"So there is really a strategy that will aim to paralyze it, to disrupt the chain of command" marked by the physical "elimination" of Khamenei, his close advisors and senior IRGC generals, he added.

But he said: "The regime is still relatively solid and resilient, it will not be an easy task", especially as "the Guards have anticipated this scenario".

Sabet said it would appear for now that Washington "would prefer something limited, where they can continue the process of weakening the system while minimizing the country's desire -- and to some extent its ability, but mostly its desire -- to carry out larger-scale retaliation".