The United States and Israel defended their military action against Iran, claiming it was necessary to protect themselves and the world from a nuclear threat. Tehran is accused of secretly stockpiling enough weapons-grade uranium to build 11 nuclear bombs. Yet after the first week of bombing, it became clear that nuclear fear was part of the story.
The war against Iran is not just another Middle East conflict. It marks the latest stage in a long process of revolution that has been reshaping the region since the end of the Cold War. And the ramifications of what is happening today extend far beyond the Middle East.
The current war can be seen as the culmination of a transformation that began three decades ago. The modern Middle East emerged in the 20th century during the decline of colonial empires. But that order began to unravel in 1991 when the United States launched Operation Desert Storm to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait.
The time was symbolic. The Gulf War coincided with a dramatic shift in global politics: the fall of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War, and the emergence of the often-called “The unipolar moment.” A period of unparalleled American dominance.
What followed was a chain reaction of crises and interventions. The terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001 sparked the global war on terror, led to military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Arab Spring then destabilized regimes across the region, followed by the intervention in Libya and the protracted civil war in Syria.
Each crisis dragged more actors into the vortex. Gradually, control over events shifted away from those who initiated them.
For Washington, the result is a strategic trap. The US has sought to minimize its direct involvement in Middle East conflicts while simultaneously maintaining its influence. These goals proved more difficult to reconcile.
In retrospect, it is clear that many American decisions in this area were reactionary. Each step is presented as part of a coherent geopolitical strategy, although the long-term consequences are rarely calculated beyond the immediate horizon.
Donald Trump, during his first presidential term and return to office, has repeatedly argued that the US should avoid military interventions far from its own borders. But Iran presented a different challenge.
Iran is the most powerful state the US has directly confronted since World War II. Not necessarily in terms of military strength, but in terms of its demographic weight and territorial influence. Attempting to dismantle such a pillar of regional order inevitably has profound consequences.
In Washington, widely circulated commentary suggests that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump agreed late last year to launch a decisive campaign against Iran.
According to this view, the Israeli leadership played a decisive role in shaping the decision. Trump, who had previously advocated a policy of restraint in the Middle East, deviated from that principle. The White House appears to have misjudged the political situation in Iran, anticipating that a sharp military strike could trigger an internal collapse.
There was also the promise of a repeat of a familiar pattern: a quick, surgical attack followed by a declaration of victory.
But that scenario failed to materialize. Instead, the region sank into instability. And once the war escalated, Washington could not retreat without risking the perception of defeat.
Domestic political issues are also important. Trump needed the support of influential political circles at home. For many American evangelicals, Israel has deep religious significance as the site of the biblical narrative of the Second Coming. At the same time, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, retained significant personal influence. He has long been connected to Israeli political circles.
The result was a convergence of political pressures that pushed the US deeper into the conflict.
In the long term, a new regional framework may emerge in West Asia. Two pillars of such an order are already visible.
The first is Israel’s military dominance throughout the region. The second involves deepening economic and financial ties between Israel and the Gulf monarchies, arrangements from which the US would benefit significantly.
The Turk remains a free agent. Yet as a NATO member it is partly integrated with Western influence structures. Israeli strategists are already discussing the possibility of improving ties with Ankara as part of a broader regional realignment.
Israel itself seems interested in the most radical outcome: the political and territorial dismantling of Iran in its current form. An even less ambitious objective, the destruction of the political and military influence of the leadership of the Islamic Republic, is considered a success in Tel Aviv.
However, even if Iran defeats the military in a relatively short time, the central question remains unanswered: What’s next?
The precedent of Iraq in 2003 was huge. Only after Washington declared victory did the most serious challenges emerge. The collapse of state institutions led to years of chaos.
Some in Washington think Iran could instead follow a Syrian-style scenario, where the fall of the Assad family finally produced a government capable of negotiating with external actors. But that outcome was partly a product of circumstances and opportunity. And Iran is a larger and more complex state.
The broader implications of this war extend far beyond the Middle East.
First, the erosion of international legal norms has reached a new level. Even before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US sought some international approval, including efforts to gain support from the UN Security Council.
Today such procedures are largely ignored. The Trump administration treats international institutions as secondary or irrelevant.
The use of force is not new in international politics. But what distinguishes the present moment is the apparent practice of power as the primary instrument of global order. The US and Israel justify their actions not through international law, but more through the logic of necessity and power.
Another instance has also been established. Israel’s strike, which ousted Iran’s supreme leader and key military figures, marks a dramatic uptick in the practice of targeted killings.
Such tactics were used in the past mainly against leaders of militant groups. Applying them to internationally recognized heads of state changes the rules of the game.
For countries that see themselves as potential targets of American or Israeli pressure, the lessons are clear. The acquisition of nuclear weapons can no longer be seen merely as a deterrent, but as a guarantee of political survival.
Trump’s broader approach to international relations reinforces this trend. His preference is to bypass multilateral institutions and deal directly with individual states. In such bilateral confrontations, Washington believes it has an advantage over almost everyone except China. And, to a lesser extent, Russia.
As a result, many countries are increasingly focusing on strengthening their own military capabilities. They try to ensure that they don’t face external pressure without a means of resisting it.
Yet the continued breakdown of international cooperation will ultimately create more instability for all. The most effective way to deal with emerging global challenges is through collective action based on mutual security and shared interests.
Whether such cooperation can survive in the current geopolitical climate remains uncertain but if it disappears altogether, the world may soon discover that dismantling the existing system of international relations is much easier than building a new one.
This article was first published ‘expert’ Translated and edited by the magazine and the RT team.
