TEHRAN - On August 13, the Hill published a report titled "If Israel strikes Iran over its nuclear program, the US must have its back". The political website came up with a bunch of suggestions for the American government to back the Zionist regime. 

The Zionist regime has been making military threats against Iran for years. Great advances in Iran's nuclear program have led to an intensification of Israel's threats against Iran. With the inauguration of the Trump era, Zionist authorities exacerbated threats, causing some media outlets to study the possibility of Israel's military attack on Iran.

Even many media outlets have speculated about the U.S. support for the Zionist regime's possible attack.

The opinion piece in the Hill is written by former Pentagon official Michael Makovsky and former deputy commander of the U.S. European Command Chuck Wald.  

The writers suggest “the Biden administration should learn from its unpreparedness for the Russia-Ukraine war.” The go on to say that the United States should be prepared for a possible major conflict between Israel and Iran.     

The Biden administration should put aside its differences with Israel and cooperate with Israel in its possible military attack on Iran, according to the Hill.

Quoting the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), the Hill said that although there are differences between the U.S. and Israel, the interests of the two countries will be aligned with Israel's military attack. So, the United States should try to mitigate Iran's retaliation and limit the scope of the conflict. 

Iran's possible reactions to Israel's military attack will depend on the level of the United States’ backing for Israel, the more Iran perceives strong U.S. support for Israel, the likelier it will limit its response, according to the Hill.

Conversely, the report added that with more differences between Israel and the United States, there will be a greater possibility that Iran and its allies will launch their missiles at Israel and cause great destruction.

As per Makovsky and Wald, Iran’s reaction would lead to the expansion of the war, involvement of the United States Army, and economic and strategic consequences in the region, so Washington’s strong support for Israel will reassure all U.S. allies from Warsaw to Taipei. 

The report added that American equivocation would shred Washington’s credibility and embolden adversaries from Tehran to Moscow and Beijing.

The Hill came up with suggestions to the United States, saying, the Biden administration and Congress must act now to signal U.S. support for Israel. The report enlisted a set of suggestions for the U.S. government, including delivery to Israel of KC-46A tankers, precision-guided munitions, F-15 and F-35 aircraft, air and missile defenses, integrated regional air, missile, and maritime defenses as well as public political support for Israel's freedom of action.  

The American government, according to the report, must make it abundantly and immediately clear in public statements and at the United Nations that it stands with Israel and fully supports its self-defense. 

Stating that Israel's military attack on Iran shows the failure of decades of American policy towards Iran, the article calls the military attack the only solution to Iran's nuclear plan. Despite what is said in the opinion piece, neither Israel's threats nor the United States' backing from the Zionist attack seem practical.

The Zionist regime faces many political and military restrictions to launch an attack on Iran. Basically, the so-called shadow war of the Zionist regime with Iran, including sabotage and terrorist attacks by Israel against Iran’s nuclear sites and its scientists, is carried out due to the regime’s lack of ability to organize a direct military attack against Iran. Entangled in an internal crisis along with successive defeats, the Zionist regime cannot come up with an internal consensus to attack Iran.

On the other hand, the Israeli regime is currently surrounded by the resistance front, which expands Iran's options for a possible response to the Zionist regime’s attack. Considering the fact that the Zionist regime is the main enemy of Iran in the region, basically, Iran's military forces are fully prepared for a possible confrontation with Tel Aviv. Tehran’s advanced missile power coupled with its astonishing drone capability has unnerved Tel Aviv.

Contrary to what was claimed in the Hill, there is vast opposition to possible attacks by the Zionist regime that will prevent it from attacking Iran. Although some regional Arab countries are aligned with some of the Israeli policies towards Iran, they do not welcome the war in the region. They are fully aware that it will endanger their economic development. Their fear of Iran's reactions prevents them from supporting the occupation regime’s plans. Contrary to what the Hill suggested, the United States cannot intervene and back Israel’s possible attack against Iran.

Considering the aforementioned reasons, the regime’s authorities have repeatedly claimed that they can act "alone" against Iran. This approach is adopted because Israeli officials are almost certain that the United States will not intervene in a possible war. There was a similar approach during the George Bush administration, which invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. In 2008, Bush had openly announced to the Zionist regime’s authorities that the U.S. government was against Israel's military attack on Iran. American authorities’ fear of the possible consequences caused them to take the approach toward a possible attack on Iran.

According to the Hill, Iran’s response with missiles will encompass the whole region. Iran will not allow the possible attack to go unanswered, and Iran will seriously react by firing missiles at Israel; as a result, the United States cannot deal with the economic and strategic consequences of such a reaction in West Asia.

In case of a war and the U.S. intervention, the American military forces in the region and their military bases will be the targets for Iran. The issue is considered a military disaster for the United States.

Internal differences in the United States regarding aggressive approaches towards Iran, the public opinion in the United States, and the approaches of the American authorities, all in all, do not welcome the inauguration of a new war in West Asia. 

The U.S. effort to counter China proves that the U.S. is not eager for a new disaster in the region.

Neither the United States is willing to back the Israeli regime in its possible attack on Iran, nor the regime is able to launch an attack by itself.