Iran could attack foreign countries to divert attention from its internal problems

 The state of global alert could soon see alongside the war scenario of the Ukrainian front, even a potential conflict involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the United States. Tehran, struggling with one of the most serious inmates in the history of the Islamic republic, due to the death of one of its citizens, of Kurdistan origin, following the arrest by the religious police, for wearing the veil incorrectly, he would have identified in a military action the method to be able to distract the internal public opinion from the protests in progress. It is clear that if this were true, the theocratic regime would reveal all its weakness in a gamble whose result, in addition to not being at all obvious, could even be the cause of the increase in the manifestations of dissent. The Iranian government has more strongly accused Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the European states, Israel and, of course, the United States, of fomenting protests, which are increasing more and more against the rules imposed by the Shiite clergy. In the Iranian Kurdistan region more than half of the inhabitants follow the rules of Sunni Islam, while in Iraqi Kurdistan the Sunnis are almost all: in fact, therefore, they are enemies of the Shiites, of which Iran considers itself the main representative. Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, is the seat of US troops still present in Iraq, and has already been the subject, in the past, of Iranian drone and missile attacks, in one case thwarted by the Americans themselves. As for Saudi Arabia, relations between the two states have always been compromised due to religious reasons, as Riyadh is the highest representative of the Sunnis and Tehran of the Shiites and both claim religious supremacy in the Islamic creed. . Although Riyadh and Washington have recently had disagreements over the Saudi desire to reduce crude oil production, a decision undoubtedly favorable to Moscow, this threat is bringing the two countries closer, after a phase in which President Biden had expressly stated that he wanted to carry out a review of bilateral relations. The danger of an Iranian attack does not allow the US to abandon its strategic interests in the region, centered on the defense of the anti-terrorism policy and the desire to integrate Israel more and more with the countries from the Gulf. Washington has already publicly specified, in the event of an Iranian attack it will not hesitate to respond directly in the first person. The stance with the Iranian threats marks a further development in the alliance between Tehran and Moscow, where Iran is increasingly committed to supplying the Russian country with weapons; tactically, the drones of Tehran were fundamental against the Ukrainian defenses and now the possible supply of missiles with a range capable of covering 300 and 700 kilometers, could bring an indisputable advantage for Moscow, which, by now, has too old, imprecise and ineffective. This factor is likely to be decisive for increasing the global divide and further US aversion to the Iranian country. In this scenario where the world appears increasingly divided into blocs, it will be interesting to see how China will want to position itself: if, on the one hand, the strategic alliance with Russia has a purely anti-American function, an expansion of armed conflicts means a decrease. the ability to create wealth worldwide: an issue to which Beijing is very sensitive, in order to maintain its growth levels such as to ensure the advancement of the country as a whole. A conflict that may involve countries that are included among the major oil producers, means a practically safe stop for the world economy and with a significant contraction in the spending power of the richest countries. Beijing, presumably, will have to abandon its aversion to the US and engage itself in negotiations, towards which it has so far maintained an attitude too shy not to show any signs of weakness towards Washington. However, the possibility remains that the Iranian threat is only verbal and that Tehran does not intend to put into practice a use of weapons from which it would have everything to lose: in fact, even this solution does not seem to be able to distract a public opinion that has never been so determined, and indeed, a conflict could only worsen the perception that Iranian citizens have of their own government; rather, the Iranian government seems to want to divert international observers more from internal ones, but in doing so it favors the coalition of executives who did not go through mutual positive moments, obtaining ever greater isolation.