“As the war in Ukraine continues, it tends to widen anyway, this may not have happened in the neighboring regions where it was thought that a clash could even take place between NATO and the Russian Federation, but this did not mean that the war did not widen anyway and that the clash occurs at the borders of Europe, and in this Israel has entered the objectives.” This is the reasoning that Arduino Paniccia, president of the School of Economic Warfare and Competition of Venice (Asce), makes with Adnkronos underlining that when we feared an expansion of the Ukrainian conflict “we did not think that it could be an expansion of the borders of EU, outside NATO, in Africa, in the Middle East, in the Caucasus”.
“The feeling is that here we are not just dealing with Hamas terrorists, here we are dealing with a much more sophisticated strategy” explains the military and geopolitical strategy analyst, who describes the attack as “a real act of war” , made possible by the implementation of “a blinding of digital security systems through a very powerful cyber and hacker attack” and the adoption of “new tactics and techniques which were inspired by the Ukrainians” which showed “that it was possible defeat a much stronger and armed army”.
But none of this could have happened “without a sponsor of international scope, which considering the situation appears to be Iran”, underlining how even the capture of the hostages “recalls distant historical events but always under Iranian management”.
Putin will have to choose between relations with Israel and his hand to his ‘ally’ Iran
For Paniccia, the issue of the hostages is a crux of the matter because “it forces us to negotiate, as seems to be happening, to avoid an immediate harsh reaction” and “then in front of world public opinion for the first time it shows Israel not strong and resolute but weak in facing the enemy” taking on “a loss in the media war that Hamas and behind the scenes Iran have certainly implemented with capacity and deployment of means”.
According to Paniccia therefore, since the Hamas attack is the result of a broader strategy, the hostage issue will present Israel with the need to “rethink the immediate action which has always been the typical response for a more in-depth analysis of what the true state of the art of the front is, it is not just a front that concerns Israel alone, therefore the analysis that Israel will have to carry out will be an analysis with its allies, with the West”.
Finally, Russia’s position which is considered “ambivalent”, recalling that Moscow “has maintained excellent relations with Israel but is inevitably a growing partner of Iran” in the “military but probably also economic part which is slowly consolidating if the war in Ukraine continues. Therefore – concludes Paniccia – Putin too will have to put both things on the table, continue with good relations with Israel or slowly perhaps even secretly lend a hand to the Iranian ‘ally’, which is part of a a deployment that allowed Russia not only to resist, not to collapse when the Wagner case occurred and to continue to have armaments and support from the Asian side.”