SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
middle east
Iran Under Fire: The United States, Israel, and the War
Geopolitics and crude realism are driving events: Trump and Netanyahu both assume that the strong can act as they wish and that the weak will suffer what they must.
Mar 05, 2026
Cynicism, illusions, and imperialist ambitions are accompanying the bombs raining down on Iran in this war between gangster states. Public feuding between President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had seemingly brought relations between their two countries to an all-time low over Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Gaza. But the differences between them were grossly exaggerated by liberal media. This second and far more intense bombing of Iran, which followed the attacks of June 2025, was planned well in advance. The United States and its regional proxy, Israel, share a common desire to assert the latter’s hegemony over the Middle East.
Why did the bombing of Iran happen now? Yes: Trump wished to deflect attention from the Epstein files, the fascist tactics of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the “affordability crisis,” a host of diplomatic setbacks, and a sinking approval rating that stands at 43%; indeed, Netanyahu’s numbers have fallen to 30%. Both leaders need a win. Attacking the retrograde Iranian regime should appeal to independent voters and Trump’s base. It should do the same for Netanyahu, who will only gain support from the orthodox religious-settlement parties on which his coalition rests. And the risk seemed worth taking: Iran looked weak in light of lingering effects from the June 2025 bombings, the collapse of its national currency, and the massive early 2026 protests that swept the country. All of this made Iran appear weak—just how weak it is remains to be seen.
Geopolitics and crude realism are driving events: Trump and Netanyahu both assume that the strong can act as they wish and that the weak will suffer what they must. Only Iran has been left standing among Israel’s regional rivals: Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco have either tacitly or formally recognized the “Zionist entity.” Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are doing brisk business with it. Syria has been torn apart by the civil war that culminated in the fall of its murderous president, Bashar al-Assad. Iraq is still plagued by the legacy of internal strife following the American invasion of 2001. Lebanon is a mess. As for Palestine, it is plagued by ever-expanding Israeli settlements, the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, and a crisis of sovereignty. It was not now or never when it came to attacking Israel’s most dangerous enemy, but now seemed a particularly opportune time.
Neither American nor Israeli foreign policy is unique. At different points in history, all “great powers”—England, Italy, France, Germany, Japan, and Russia—pursued policies that simultaneously strengthened their regional hegemony, expanded their “living space,” secured their spheres of influence, and used horrific tactics to achieve their aims. The justifications remain roughly the same: the national interest is being served; its security requires proactive measures; the victims will benefit from defeat; and, of course, imperialism is realizing the nation’s “destiny.”
Opportunities exist for progressive forces to act decisively. However, most Democrats remain fixed on formal rather than substantive criticisms.
Not some biblically ordained mission of the Jewish people regarding the conquest of Judea and Samaria, not the non-existent Jewish world conspiracy described in the fabricated “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” not American fears of a non-existent Iranian nuclear weapon, and not the desire to spread democracy, inspired the war. Far better reasons can be found. There are material and psycho-political gains that the United States and Israel would gain with respect to oil (prices), real estate, annexation projects, inflation of group narcissism, and the celebration of an unpopular president for conquering a hated enemy seem too obvious to require further elaboration.
Iran is the most vocal enemy of the United States. Defeating it would nicely complement attempts to reaffirm the United States’ regional hegemony over Latin America and the Caribbean called for by the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 and new versions of what was once known as its “manifest destiny.” National security is the lame justification for attacking “narco-terrorist” states, but also for acquiring Greenland, and the desire for more living space, which has led to demands that Canada become the 51st state. The United States is intent on asserting itself as the independent world hegemon that is accountable only to itself. This helps explain its growing separation from Europe and NATO, its withdrawal from international treaties and organizations, and its abandonment of the multilateral approach to crisis situations.
Justifications for the bombing of Iran have shifted from the need to defend the protesters to being “proactive” in the face of an “imminent threat” to the dangers attendant on the regime building a nuclear weapon and its unwillingness to "make a
deal.” But the bombing didn’t take place until the protesters were slaughtered, the CIA itself denied that an attack on the United States was imminent, and President Barack Obama had already sealed a complicated deal with Iran that prevented it from developing a nuclear device for military purposes. Insisting that he could get a better deal, however, President Trump tore up the existing agreement on May 8, 2018.
Of course, that attempt failed. Monitoring Iran became impossible as new opportunities emerged to rekindle its suspended nuclear enterprise. Given American-Israeli views and prejudices about Iran, it mattered little that Iran just recently claimed (as it had while negotiating with Obama) that it was only interested in developing nuclear energy for domestic purposes. Following the bombing of Iran in June 2025 by the United States and Israel, their leaders insisted that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been destroyed. But this was a lie: Its nuclear facilities survived. Trump and Netanyahu are now trying to turn the falsehood into truth.
There should be no misunderstanding: Iran’s theocracy is corrupt, self-righteous, dictatorial, and incompetent in its administration of economic affairs. The country was experiencing a downward economic spiral, and near collapse, when its government cracked down on protesters; its criminal inhumane actions resulted in 10,000 deaths and 50,000 arrests. However, these courageous revolts in the name of democracy are intertwined with the cynical reality that we are experiencing now. The cunning of history is in effect as Trump calls upon Iranians to overthrow their regime now, because they will “never get a better chance,” and thereby heightens the prospect for further reprisals and perhaps even civil war.
What will happen once the regime falls is apparently of secondary concern just as it was before the American invasion of Iraq. Belief that the Iraqi people would celebrate the arrival of American troops was naïve at best and though opposition to its leader, Saddam Hussein, was widespread, internal divisions existed between various tribal-religious militias often with very different political aims. It was the same following the fall of Bashir al-Assad in Syria and any number of uprisings in Africa. Arguably the greatest of all political philosophers, Thomas Hobbes, warned that to topple a sovereign without having another ready to step in is a recipe for chaos; it is a lesson that the United States has yet to learn.
The stakes have only grown with the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader the Ayatollah Khamenei and various important officers of the noxious Revolutionary Guard. Unsurprisingly, the announcement of Khamenei’s death was not only greeted by joyful celebrations, but by outbreaks of public mourning. Iran is divided, and the consequences appear ominous. Some members of the Supreme Council, which will choose Khamenei’s successor, have popularly based military followings. Clashing ambitions and other contentious concerns could lead them to turn against one another or, as a religious combine, against a democratic opposition whose leadership and goals remain unclear.
Meanwhile, the war is expanding as Israel sends troops into Lebanon in order to eliminate Hezbollah and Iran strikes the Gulf States and the US embassy in Riyad, Saudi Arabia. There is hardly a state in the region that that has not been subject to missile hits or worse, and President Trump has said that he might employ ground troops, which can only mean invasion. Nor should Iran count on its neighbors for support. Iran is Shiite and Sunni Muslims in other Middle East countries are unlikely to engage in a show of solidarity; indeed, the Arab League has been notably cautious in its response to the crisis. There is also little likelihood that criticisms and condemnations will translate into serious consequences for the aggressors. The regional balance of power is secure, and the religious zealots and xenophobic settlers, whose parties are keeping Netanyahu afloat, are surely happy.
Meanwhile, Iran and its citizenry are already paying an inordinate price for this Western escapade, suffering over 1,000 dead in the first few days of the conflict and devastating attacks on the infrastructure. It is likely to get worse. American and Israeli aims remain unclear; “mission creep” is taking place as the goal shifts from forcing Iran to the negotiating table to assuring “zero” capacity for Iran to build a bomb to regime change to regional reordering. But, then, there is time to decide. The president who once constantly complained about American involvement in foreign wars has stated that citizens should prepare for a long conflict. Hopefully not too long, of course, since Americans tend to celebrate foreign wars when they start, but quickly become impatient when the body bags start coming home—and they will.
Opportunities exist for progressive forces to act decisively. However, most Democrats remain fixed on formal rather than substantive criticisms. They are primarily engaged in legalistic attacks on President Trump for not consulting Congress before declaring war, acting unilaterally, and ignoring the Constitution. That is insufficient. Judgments must be made should Trump’s attack on the Iranian theocracy prove successful—and regarding the new circumstances that this might create. The Democratic Party has not offered its own version of what policies will serve the national interest when it comes to the Middle East. It has not explicitly condemned American imperialism, and it has not punished Israel for its outrageous behavior in Gaza and the West Bank. of Israel. In short, the party has not presented even the rough outlines of an alternative foreign policy. Unless Democrats rise to the occasion, their prospects for changing America’s standing in the world and recapturing its promise are bleak as the midterm elections approach in 2026.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unlike the United States,' Says Security Chief, Iran 'Has Prepared Itself for a Long War'
"Trump plunged the region into chaos with his 'delusional fantasies' and now fears more American troop casualties," said the secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani.
Mar 02, 2026
As US President Donald Trump unleashed a barrage of bombings on Monday in what is rapidly spiraling into a regional conflagration, Iran's security chief said the country is ready for a long war, but questioned whether the US is prepared for the same.
“Trump plunged the region into chaos with his ‘delusional fantasies’ and now fears more American troop casualties,” said Ali Larijani, the secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, in a post on social media Monday. “With his delusional actions, he turned his self-made 'America First' slogan into 'Israel First' and sacrificed American soldiers for Israel’s power-hungry ambitions.”
"Iran, unlike the United States, has prepared itself for a long war," he said.
Just before US-Israeli strikes began this weekend, Iran reportedly offered Trump a deal that included Iran giving up all of its enriched uranium and full cooperation with international nuclear inspectors—terms even more conciliatory than those in the original Iran nuclear agreement that Trump ripped up during his first presidency.
But now the US and Israel have taken out several senior Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and included what some observers described as the "carpet bombing" of Tehran, including heavily populated civilian areas, Larijani has declared diplomacy off the table.
"We will not negotiate with the United States," he wrote on social media, disputing reports that he'd restarted talks with Washington.
With diplomatic avenues once again blown up, Iran has shifted toward making a war maximally costly for the US and Israel and deterring its other Arab allies from joining.
At least four US military personnel have already been killed, and four others seriously wounded in attacks at military bases in Kuwait. Trump has acknowledged that more casualties are "likely," which may further heighten the backlash among the American public, which already largely does not support the war, according to a poll released this weekend.
All six of the Gulf nations that host US military bases—including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain—have been hit with Iranian missiles and drones, with some attacks spilling into civilian areas—including Dubai's and Kuwait’s international airports, as well as luxury hotels and residential skyscrapers, which resulted in at least three reported civilian deaths.
Israel has also been pummelled with artillery from Iran and its allied militia Hezbollah in Lebanon. Strikes from Iran have reportedly killed at least 11 people and left dozens more injured in Israel, according to local authorities. Israel has retaliated with a massive attack on Lebanon, which the Lebanese health ministry has said killed at least 31 people.
While Iran lacks the military might of the US and Israel, it is likely seeking to deploy its arsenal of cheaper, older drones to deplete the two powerful countries' expensive air defense systems and force them into a war of attrition, according to Amos C. Fox, a professor at Arizona State University’s Future Security Initiative, and Franz-Stefan Gady, an associate fellow for cyber power and future conflict at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
"The attackers do not want to find themselves trapped in an attritional slugfest, where they burn through hundreds of millions of dollars per day, exhaust their stocks of the most advanced interceptors, and face the prospect of a prolonged war—not by losing on the battlefield but by simply exhausting their anti-air weapons in the coming days and weeks," they wrote in Foreign Policy magazine on Monday.
“The attackers do not want to find themselves trapped in an attritional slugfest, where they burn through hundreds of millions of dollars per day, exhaust their stocks of the most advanced interceptors, and face the prospect of a prolonged war—not by losing on the battlefield but by simply exhausting their anti-air weapons in the coming days and weeks,” they continued. “The United States and its allies may eventually win—but at what price in terms of material and treasure? Iran knows that Israeli and US theories of success are premised on a quick and decisive strike campaign. Iran’s strategy will therefore be to play for time, rather than operate in a way to support the US-Israeli timeline.”
Cranking up the pressure further, Iran has also declared that "no ship is allowed to pass" through the Strait of Hormuz, which handles around 20% of global oil shipments. Prices have already begun to spike, and shipments have been canceled. Financial analysts have predicted that the closure of the strait could drive the price of a barrel to nearly double, potentially triggering global economic instability.
While predicting that the war would be over in “four to five” weeks on Monday, Trump acknowledged the possibility for it to go “far longer than that,” saying, “We’ll do whatever.” He also said he would not rule out a deployment of ground troops.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted that this war, which has already claimed the lives of nearly 600 Iranians, would not be “endless” like the war in Iraq, which dragged on for nearly a decade and is estimated to have killed around half a million Iraqis.
However, after killing Khamenei, the Trump administration has provided little clarity on its military objectives. Meanwhile, their rationalizations for the conflict—including claims that an attack on US troops from Iran was imminent, and that it was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon—have proven untrue.
Trump has also admitted to Jonathan Karl, the chief Washington correspondent for ABC News, that many of the leading "candidates" to take over the country "are all dead" from US strikes.
Though Trump has said his goal is to secure the "freedom" of the Iranian people, international experts say decapitating its government is more likely to empower its most authoritarian elements or create a mad, violent scramble for power.
"The two most likely outcomes for Iran are the imposition of an even more ruthless regime controlled by the security apparatus and its new collective leadership or a fragmentation of the country, perhaps precipitated by tension between the military and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC)," said Daniel Brumberg, non-resident senior fellow at the Arab Center in Washington DC. "Both could also ensue at once."
Shireen Hunter, an Iranian political scientist at the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, said that permanent destabilization may be the goal for the US, and—more importantly—Israel, which views Iran as its primary antagonist in the region.
“Slogans such as ‘freedom for Iranians’ and ‘Make Iran Great Again’ are meaningless. Do they want Iran to remain as a unified country? I have my doubts,“ she said. ”Saddam Hussein once said that five small Irans are better than one big Iran. Netanyahu agrees with that. What neither the US nor Israel wants is a strong nationalist government in Iran.“
"There is no obvious leader with the necessary qualifications to shape the nature of the new regime in Iran... any leader who comes to power by foreign intervention soon loses his or her legitimacy," she continued. "If the conflict continues, the risk of civil or even regional war is high, as is the risk of Iran's disintegration with unforeseeable consequences for regional countries."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Only 25% of Americans Support Trump Attack on Iran: Poll
"If this goes on... this is going to become a political disaster," said one foreign policy expert.
Mar 02, 2026
President Donald Trump's war in Iran is extraordinarily unpopular, according to a poll conducted shortly after the US and Israel carried out massive strikes on the country Saturday.
The survey, conducted by Reuters/Ipsos, found that just 27% of voters approved of the strikes, which have killed at least 555 Iranians as of Monday morning and resulted in retaliation from Iran that has killed at least four US service members, with more casualties expected according to a spokesperson for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Meanwhile, 43% of respondents disapproved of the military action, while 29% said they were not sure.
A majority of Republicans said they approved of the strikes, with 55% expressing support. Still, 13% disapproved, and a noteworthy 31% said they were unsure.
Approval is dismal with nearly everyone else. Only 19% of independents expressed support compared to 44% who disapproved. And though Democratic leaders in Congress have done little to stand in the way of the strikes, their voters are overwhelmingly against them: 74% said they disapproved, while just 7% approved.
The poll reflects a wider skepticism of US military intervention, with 56% of respondents saying the president was too quick to deploy military force in recent months, including in Venezuela, Syria, and Nigeria.
Compared with previous US military interventions in the Middle East, such as the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, which—at least at their outset—enjoyed broad support from the American public following intense government efforts to drum up support, there has been little effort by the Trump administration to define the purpose of war with Iran.
Trump's justification for launching the war has shifted wildly since he began amassing troops in the region. Trump has most recently said the strikes were intended to stop an "imminent threat" from Iran; meanwhile, the Pentagon has told Congress there was no sign Iran was planning an attack unless the US did so first.
The president previously said his push for war was to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, an assertion at odds with his claim that his strikes in June "obliterated" the country's nuclear capabilities.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera that Trump's shifting explanations reek of "desperation."
"It's very clear that Trump has a tremendous difficulty finding a justification for this war of choice that he's embarked on," he said. "The reality is that if this goes on for another week or two, this is going to become a political disaster."
"So now he's suddenly, desperately, using all kinds of justifications: Liberating the Iranian people, Iran is fighting against civilization," Parsi said. "If he actually had a case, he would have stuck to that point and made it clearly. But he doesn't have one."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular