هناك الكثير من النتائج والكثير من الأسئلة التي لن تغادر منطقة الشرق الأوسط لسنوات قادمة إثر حرب الخليج الثالثة، لعل أبرزها أن الحروب لم تعد تنتهي بالاستسلام أو برفع الراية البيضاء، آخر استسلام شهدته البشرية كان استسلام خيمة صفوان بعد خسارة الجيش العراقي في حرب تحرير الكويت أمام قوات التحالف، وربما سننتظر سنوات طويلة لنرى استسلامًا آخر.
في الحرب الأخيرة بين إسرائيل وإيران، هناك العديد من الأسئلة التي لن تجد لها إجابة قاطعة، وهناك أيضًا العديد من الدروس المستفادة التي ستتبناها الدول، والتي ستشكّل وجه الحروب القادمة وتغيّر من معادلات وأولويات التسليح لعقود طويلة.
فبرغم تحليق الجيش الإسرائيلي فوق أجواء إيران طوال أسبوعين، إلا أن طائرات الدرونز والصواريخ العابرة حلّت محل الرافال والميغ والـF-14، وربما تزيح تأثيرها في المستقبل، أو تصبح ذات أولوية ثانوية في تسليح الجيوش.
كما أن تطوير منظومات الدفاع الجوي، ومضادات الصواريخ، سيشكّل أولوية قصوى في المستقبل؛ إذ إن تأثير سقوط صاروخ على حي سكني أقوى إعلاميًا من سقوطه على قاعدة عسكرية، ومع إرسال مئات الصواريخ مصحوبة بالآلاف من الطائرات المسيرة، يتعمق التحدي أمام الدول، وسيجبر الجيوش المتقدمة على ابتكار المزيد من التقنيات الحديثة التي تساعد في التصدي للهجمات الصاروخية.
لكن الأهم في نظري هو بناء فكرة الانتصار في الوجدان الشعبي: فلم تعد جميع الأطراف مقتنعة بفكرة الخسارة، بل إن إدارة تحقيق النصر أصبحت أكثر أهمية من تحقيقه فعليًا. ولعل هذا السؤال سيظل موضوع نقاشات عديدة، ولن يستطيع طرف أن يقنع الطرف الآخر من هزم ومن انتصر.
لقد تغيرت أساليب الحروب وأصبحت تُدار سياسيًا عبر النقاشات والوساطات، مع تقديم التضحيات والتنازلات. بل إن الوسطاء يقبلون ببعض التضحيات ليحصدوا شيئًا من ثمار المعركة، ثم تنفذ تفاصيل الاتفاق على الأرض من خلال قصف أو ضربات منسقة. وستظل العديد من الاتفاقات سرية، طالما أنها تحقق للمشرفين على المشهد «مصالحهم»، وسيتركون للشارع أن يصيغ وجدانه ويحقق أفراحه، حتى وإن كانت وهمية أو غير حقيقية.
إنه تحول عميق وعملي في أساليب الحروب الحديثة، فلم تعد الضربة الجوية قادرة على إحداث الاستسلام وإلحاق الهزائم بالجيوش كما حدث في حرب 1967 بين دول الطوق وإسرائيل، التي هُزمت في أول ساعتين.
بلا شك، ستثار العديد من الأسئلة داخل أروقة السياسيين، لكن أكثرها أهمية داخل جيوش المنطقة ستكون: هل هم بحاجة إلى إعادة طريقة التسليح؟ وعلى ماذا يتم التركيز مستقبلًا؟ وأي الأسلحة أكثر تأثيرًا؟
هل الطائرات ذات التكلفة العالية، أم الصواريخ العابرة، أم الطائرات بدون طيار (الدرونز) خفيفة الحركة ومنخفضة التكلفة؟ وهل الجيوش بحاجة للاشتباك المباشر على الأرض كما كانت في الحروب التقليدية سابقًا أم لا ؟، وغالبًا سيبقى هذا السؤال يؤرق صناع القرار لسنوات طويلة.
لقد أثبتت تجارب أوكرانيا وغزة -على سبيل المثال- أن الاشتباك المباشر بين القوات لم يُسفر عن انتهاء المعارك، ومع ثلاث سنوات في أوكرانيا وسنتين في غزة، لا تزال الاشتباكات قائمة، لأنها تعتمد على الإنسان، والإنسان لا يفنى.
كما أن قواعد الاشتباك الجديدة التي فرضتها الحرب الأخيرة، تقول إن الحروب لم تعد تشن من أجل تحقيق الانتصارات فقط، بل لتحريك الملفات، وتطويق الأخطار دون رفع الرايات البيضاء، ودون إزاحة الأنظمة أو استبدالها.
وأصبح من المهم عند خوض أي معركة أن تمنح خصومك انتصارات هنا وهناك، وأن تتبادل معهم النتائج، وتتفق على مناطق القصف قبل بدء العمليات، لتحقيق نتائج سياسية وشعبية، هذه هي حروب القرن الجديد التي لم تعد تشبه أي حروب سابقة.
محمد الساعد
دروس مستفادة من حرب الخليج الثالثة!
26 يونيو 2025 - 00:09
|
آخر تحديث 26 يونيو 2025 - 00:09
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
There are many outcomes and numerous questions that will linger in the Middle East for years to come following the Third Gulf War. Perhaps the most prominent is that wars no longer end with surrender or the raising of a white flag. The last surrender witnessed by humanity was the surrender of the Safwan tent after the Iraqi army's defeat in the Kuwait Liberation War against coalition forces, and we may wait many years to see another surrender.
In the recent war between Israel and Iran, there are many questions that will not find definitive answers, and there are also many lessons learned that countries will adopt, which will shape the nature of future wars and alter the equations and priorities of armament for decades to come.
Despite the Israeli army flying over Iranian airspace for two weeks, drones and ballistic missiles have replaced the Rafale, MiG, and F-14, and their influence may diminish in the future or become a secondary priority in military armament.
Additionally, the development of air defense systems and missile interceptors will become a top priority in the future; the impact of a missile falling on a residential neighborhood is more powerful in media terms than it falling on a military base. With hundreds of missiles being launched accompanied by thousands of drones, the challenge deepens for countries, forcing advanced armies to innovate more modern technologies to help counter missile attacks.
However, what is most important in my view is building the idea of victory in the popular consciousness: no longer are all parties convinced of the idea of defeat, but managing to achieve victory has become more important than actually achieving it. This question will likely remain a topic of many discussions, and no party will be able to convince the other who was defeated and who triumphed.
War tactics have changed and are now managed politically through discussions and mediations, with sacrifices and concessions made. In fact, mediators accept some sacrifices to reap some of the fruits of the battle, and then the details of the agreement are implemented on the ground through bombings or coordinated strikes. Many agreements will remain secret as long as they serve the interests of those overseeing the scene, allowing the public to shape its consciousness and achieve its joys, even if they are illusory or not real.
This is a profound and practical shift in modern warfare tactics; airstrikes are no longer capable of inducing surrender and inflicting defeats on armies as they did in the 1967 war between the encircling states and Israel, which was defeated in the first two hours.
Undoubtedly, many questions will arise within the corridors of politicians, but the most important ones within the armies of the region will be: Do they need to rethink their armament strategies? What should be the focus moving forward? Which weapons are more effective?
Are high-cost aircraft, or ballistic missiles, or agile and low-cost drones more effective? Do armies need to engage directly on the ground as they did in traditional wars, or not? This question will likely continue to trouble decision-makers for many years.
The experiences of Ukraine and Gaza— for example— have proven that direct engagement between forces has not led to the end of battles; with three years in Ukraine and two years in Gaza, clashes are still ongoing because they depend on human involvement, and humans do not perish.
Moreover, the new rules of engagement imposed by the recent war indicate that wars are no longer waged solely to achieve victories, but to move files and contain dangers without raising white flags or displacing or replacing regimes.
It has become important in any battle to grant your opponents victories here and there, to exchange results with them, and to agree on bombing areas before operations commence, to achieve political and popular results. This is the warfare of the new century, which no longer resembles any previous wars.
In the recent war between Israel and Iran, there are many questions that will not find definitive answers, and there are also many lessons learned that countries will adopt, which will shape the nature of future wars and alter the equations and priorities of armament for decades to come.
Despite the Israeli army flying over Iranian airspace for two weeks, drones and ballistic missiles have replaced the Rafale, MiG, and F-14, and their influence may diminish in the future or become a secondary priority in military armament.
Additionally, the development of air defense systems and missile interceptors will become a top priority in the future; the impact of a missile falling on a residential neighborhood is more powerful in media terms than it falling on a military base. With hundreds of missiles being launched accompanied by thousands of drones, the challenge deepens for countries, forcing advanced armies to innovate more modern technologies to help counter missile attacks.
However, what is most important in my view is building the idea of victory in the popular consciousness: no longer are all parties convinced of the idea of defeat, but managing to achieve victory has become more important than actually achieving it. This question will likely remain a topic of many discussions, and no party will be able to convince the other who was defeated and who triumphed.
War tactics have changed and are now managed politically through discussions and mediations, with sacrifices and concessions made. In fact, mediators accept some sacrifices to reap some of the fruits of the battle, and then the details of the agreement are implemented on the ground through bombings or coordinated strikes. Many agreements will remain secret as long as they serve the interests of those overseeing the scene, allowing the public to shape its consciousness and achieve its joys, even if they are illusory or not real.
This is a profound and practical shift in modern warfare tactics; airstrikes are no longer capable of inducing surrender and inflicting defeats on armies as they did in the 1967 war between the encircling states and Israel, which was defeated in the first two hours.
Undoubtedly, many questions will arise within the corridors of politicians, but the most important ones within the armies of the region will be: Do they need to rethink their armament strategies? What should be the focus moving forward? Which weapons are more effective?
Are high-cost aircraft, or ballistic missiles, or agile and low-cost drones more effective? Do armies need to engage directly on the ground as they did in traditional wars, or not? This question will likely continue to trouble decision-makers for many years.
The experiences of Ukraine and Gaza— for example— have proven that direct engagement between forces has not led to the end of battles; with three years in Ukraine and two years in Gaza, clashes are still ongoing because they depend on human involvement, and humans do not perish.
Moreover, the new rules of engagement imposed by the recent war indicate that wars are no longer waged solely to achieve victories, but to move files and contain dangers without raising white flags or displacing or replacing regimes.
It has become important in any battle to grant your opponents victories here and there, to exchange results with them, and to agree on bombing areas before operations commence, to achieve political and popular results. This is the warfare of the new century, which no longer resembles any previous wars.


