[ad_1]
On February 27, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, who was mediating talks between the United States and Iran, told an American channel that a deal was within reach. He said Iran had committed not to make a nuclear bomb “ever” and not to stockpile nuclear material. The next day, the U.S. and Israel began bombing Iran, killing its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and dozens of senior Iranian officials. Israel described the campaign as a “pre-emptive” war to remove “existential threats”, while U.S. President Donald Trump urged Iranians to “take over your government,” adding, “This will probably be your only chance for generations.” It was clear from the way the initial decapitation strike was carried out and the remarks issued by Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu, that what the invading bloc wanted was regime change.
The Iranian government, despite the initial blow, has reorganised itself and is hitting back. West Asia, as a result of the actions of Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu, is witnessing one of its most perilous moments in the post-Second World War era — a conflict whose outcome will define the region for the decades to come.
Iran-Israel war | Live updates
After the 12-day war in June 2025, Mr. Trump announced that he had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme. Mr. Netanyahu declared a “historic victory”. So, why did they start another war eight months later? Israel has always wanted regime change in Iran. For Tel Aviv, Iran is the only revisionist country that challenges its supremacy in West Asia. Arab countries, many of them hosting American bases or dependent on American aid, have either established direct ties with Israel or accepted to live with Israel’s militarism and its occupation of Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese territories. But Israel sees Iran, a country of 90 million people with enormous economic potential and an advanced missile programme, as an existential threat.
When then U.S. President Barack Obama signed the nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, his focus was on addressing Iran’s nuclear programme. He believed that a non-nuclear Iran would be good news for West Asia, where a “cold peace” between Tehran and its adversaries would be established. But, Israel had a different understanding. Its problem was not merely Iran’s nuclear programme but its conventional might. That is why Mr. Netanyahu opposed the 2015 deal with all his might.
Geopolitics of Iran
In recent times, when the U.S. and Iran were engaged in talks, Israel had repeatedly called for a deal to include Iran’s missile programme and its support for non-state militias in the region. What Mr. Netanyahu wanted was a total disarmament of Iran — a demand no Iranian leader, except someone installed by Mr. Netanyahu in Tehran — can accept. A Tehran-based security analyst told The Hindu on February 24 in unmistakable terms that Iran would not sign a deal with the U.S. on its nuclear programme. He said, “If Iran agrees to surrender its ballistic missiles today to avert war with the U.S., Israel will bomb us anyway a few months down the line. So, the question Iranians ask themselves is why should they give up their last deterrent?”
Editorial | Imperial war: on the war against Iran
The only way Israel could meet all its objectives was to bring about a regime change. Regime change would also be geopolitically rewarding. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is gone. Qadhafi’s Libya is gone. Bashar al-Assad is in Moscow while a former jihadist is running Damascus. Hezbollah has been weakened. Hamas has been pushed to the ruins of Gaza. The Arab countries are unlikely to do anything other than issue condemnation letters. Iran is the last revisionist power standing. If the Islamic Republic is taken down, the regional balance of power would shift, setting the stage for a unipolar West Asia, with Israel, fully backed by Washington, at its centre. This is more about geopolitics and Israel’s own interests than about giving freedom to the Iranians.
Decapitation strategy
But there is one problem. Iran, ring-fenced by tall mountains and roughly 70 times bigger than Israel, is a geographical fortress. Israel alone cannot bring about regime change. Typically, regime changes are achieved through a ground invasion — even then it is not guaranteed. Israel pulverised Gaza, a strip of land sandwiched between Israel and the Mediterranean Sea for 24 months and killed at least 70,000 of its people, but has still not unseated Hamas. No country, including the U.S., wants to send ground troops to Iran. If an Iraq-style ground invasion is not possible, the other options are Libya or Syria. But in Libya and Syria, there was armed opposition to the regime that led the battle on the ground.
In Libya, it took months-long bombing by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to topple Qadhafi’s regime. In Syria, which fell into a disastrous civil war in 2012, it took 12 years for Mr. Assad to fall. In Iran, there is no organised armed opposition. So, what Israel tried to do in June 2025 and February 2026 was to carry out decapitation strikes — give a blow so heavy that the regime would not stand up and fight back.
In June 2025, the Iranians recovered from the initial shock fast and began hitting back. Mr. Netanyahu had said that regime change would be a desirable outcome of the war, but he had to ask for American help and then agree to a ceasefire after 12 days. In February 2026, backed by a more willing U.S., Israel has launched a much broader and more ambitious strike, killing Khamenei. Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu want a quick, decisive victory. But if they thought the assassination of the “leader of the revolution” would lead to the crowds jamming the streets and taking over the institutions bringing down the regime, that has not happened — not as yet. Iran seems prepared for this moment, and is hitting back at American bases across the region, and Israel, widening the war.
A regional war
During the 2025 June war, Iran’s response was mainly focused on Israel. It launched a token strike on the U.S. base in Qatar following an American attack on its nuclear facilities and subsequently agreed to a ceasefire. But this time, Iran is hitting American bases across the Persian Gulf kingdoms and Israel. Iranian missiles and drones have targeted a military base in Cyprus and a French base in the United Arab Emirates. Iran has also announced the shutting of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow chokepoint connecting the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea through which a third of the global energy supply flows. This is a risky gamble.
In two days, Iran has regionalised the war. This is the all-out war almost all critics of Mr. Trump’s Iran policy had warned him about. The supporters of the war in Washington had said that Iran was bluffing. But it was not. If Iran continues to attack U.S. bases (some of them were hit hard) in the Gulf monarchies, these countries would be pressed to join the war. And if they do, the cross-Gulf conflict could have disastrous implications for energy trade, severely impacting the global economy. A prolonged conflict would also mean that the missile defence shields that are currently protecting these bases, Israel and other American assets in the region, would be exhausted.
This means that the clock is ticking fast for both sides. It is unclear whether Mr. Trump was prepared for a scenario in which the Iranian state survives the assault. Washington and Tel Aviv aim to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile stockpiles and its launchers to blunt its firepower. But if Iran retains its strike capability and continues to widen the war, the pressure on Mr. Trump would intensify.
To be sure, there is a vast gap between the conventional strength of the U.S.-Israel alliance and that of Iran. Yet, conventional superiority alone does not guarantee victory, which depends on clearly defined and attainable objectives. If Mr. Trump seeks a swift and decisive triumph, Iran’s doctrine is built precisely to deny it. Mr. Trump wants to kill the guerrilla because, as Henry Kissinger would agree, the guerrilla wins if he does not lose.
Published – March 03, 2026 12:16 am IST
[ad_2]
Israel, the U.S. and a war to build a unipolar West Asia
