Raudsik also noted Hamas had not achieved its objectives following the attack on Israel a year ago, whereas Israel has become increasingly dominant in the aftermath and is able to wage war across the region.

Whether this marks the start of a new era, Raudsik said it likely did.

Speaking to foreign affairs show "Välisilm," Raudsik said: "Hamas did not achieve the objectives it had hoped for after the attack on Israel a year ago."

"For Hamas, the goal was to bring war to Israel, not vice versa as has unfolded, with Israel increasingly bringing the conflict to others."

"Israel is clearly the dominant side," he added.

Raudsik said that Hamas had overestimated its capabilities in making its attack, likening it to other terror groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, which have also failed to meet expectations from some quarters, not least their own, of major regional change.

"If we think back, all such organizations, though perhaps different in content, are similar in form. Take Al-Qaeda twenty years ago, post- 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the Americans essentially driving them from their home," referring to Afghanistan, where the organization had been practically sheltered by the ruling Taliban.

The same would apply to U.S. intervention in Libya in 2011.

"They didn't foresee this; they didn't expect such a drawn out conflict yet without the collapse of the U.S., which they had hoped for at the time," Raudsik continued.

"Think of ISIS, which just seven years ago had similarly hoped for fundamental change in the Middle East, and with a caliphate, taking over the entire region. That didn't materialize either," he added.

At te same time, the current situation is unique, Raudsik went on.

"If we draw a parallel to 9/11, followed by the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, or to the revolutions of the Arab Spring that eventually led to civil wars and the rise of ISIS in a unique way – if we mae use of that parallel, though it doesn't fully hold firm, we are at the beginning of something."

Israel's response to the Hamas attack has been unprecedented and may signal the beginning of a conflict that could last for years.

"We had this dramatic event – the massacre organized by Hamas," Raudsik said. "Now we've seen Israel's response over a year, but in reality, as with previous conflicts, this thing could last for years and bring long-term effects. We might be at a similar point now."

The normalization process between Israel and other Middle Eastern countries is therefore on pause, though it is not finished, he argued.

As for the Shia Islamic, Iran-backed, Lebanon-based Hezbollah, this poses a greater threat to Israel than Hamas, Raudsik said.

Israel's decisive actions in response – from booby trapped pagers to assassinations to a land incursion into southern Lebanon – are proof positive of this.

A repeat of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kippur War, with Israel being attacked from multiple sides, is unlikely, however.

The expert argued the main conflict remains between Israel and Iran, with southern Lebanon and Syria being potential battlegrounds (the roughly 200 ballistic missiles fired by Iran at Israel a week ago would have mostly passed over Syrian airspace – ed.).

"Syria is another option. Right now, it is interesting to see how Syria has kept its distance," Raudsik said. Iran is interested in using Syrian territory for military purposes, he added.

Tehran may remain on edge ahead of the U.S. presidential elections, now less than a month away, Raudsik added.

Reuters reports Iran has vowed a redoubled retaliation to any subsequent attacks on it by Israel. U.S. President Joe Biden said last Friday that he did not think Israel had yet decided how to respond to last week's missile strike.

What Israel might do next relates to a whole host of factors, including world oil prices – since a strike on Iran would be easiest to conduct on its oil fields, which are in the west of the country, near the gulf and so nearest to Israel.

While Iran produces about 3 percent of total, that would be enough to impact prices (even an apparent slip of the tongue on the topic by President Biden was followed by a 5 percent rise in Brent crude prices), and this is something which would benefit Russia, as a major oil producer, but which China would be less interested in happening.

Indeed, the US has been more than leery about Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian refineries.

As totalitarian regimes, Russia and Iran are much more dependent on leveraging their rich energy resources as compliance measures than first world democracies like the U.S. or U.K. are.

Saudi Arabia would be able to step in as an alternative source of oil, however, and is a strong rival to Iran – part of the rationale behind Hamas' brutal attacks on civilians a year ago was to avoid Israel and Saudi moving closer together, though ironically that is what may end up happening – and then Israel might have scope for using Saudi airspace during any attack on Iran.

Other targets in Iran could include its nuclear program – it is not a nuclear power in terms of weaponry but an attack may serve to reduce the likelihood of that happening in future. On the other hand, its nuclear facilities are harder to hit, being mostly subterranean, in mountainous regions.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!