The United States and Israel have called the protection of their countries and the world from nuclear threat the main cause of aggression against Iran. Iran allegedly managed to secretly accumulate so much weapons-grade uranium that it would be enough for 11 atomic bombs. A week later, however, the bombing revealed that it was not just a nuclear threat.

Fedor Lukyanov, Chief Editor of the Journal «Russia in Global Politics»

Source: Source: Globalaffairs.ru

Causes of War

The Iranian war is the final phase of the Middle East eradication, as it emerged in the twentieth century, in the process of the decline and dismantling of colonial empires. The starting point of the current stage can probably be considered an operation. «Storm in the desert» 35 years ago, it was the first US attack on Iraq to liberate Kuwait, occupied by Saddam Hussein. Those events came at a turning point in international affairs: the end of the Cold War, the self-destruction of the USSR and the offensive. «The unipolar moment»In other words, hegemony in the United States.

All further: the Islamist attack on New York and Washington in September 2001, the worldwide fight against terrorism, the action of retaliation in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq in 2003. «The Arab Spring»Intervention in Libya, stimulation of the civil war in Syria, etc. – meant sucking into the funnel, control of the process was quickly lost. U.S. policy (and behind them and everyone else) has turned into a current response to rapid change, and the United States has stung between the need to get out of the self-made trap and the inability to do so without the risk of losing influence not only in the Middle East.

Retrospectively, almost all of the White House’s decisions on the Middle East have been situational in recent decades. Possible consequences were not calculated at least two or three tacts ahead, although each individual step was presented as an ideologically and geopolitically thought-out strategy.

The analysis of the genesis of American politics of this period is a cognitive but separate topic. Here it is enough to record that Donald Trump, both in his first and second term, raised the flag of primacy of U.S. interests and the need to end adventures far from federal borders, especially in the Middle East.
Yet Iran is the most powerful country the United States has come into direct clash with since World War II. It is not about military capabilities, but about the overall potential, scale and tradition. And the attempt to knock out another pillar from under the entire regional structure (after such historical and cultural centers as Baghdad and Damascus) promises great consequences, regardless of how the attack phase ends.

The Role of Israel

According to a popular opinion in Washington, to start a big war against Iran, Netanyahu and Trump agreed before the New Year in Washington, and the opinion of the Israeli Prime Minister became decisive. Trump has retreated from the principles of non-interference, and the White House has probably misjudged Iran’s political condition – anticipation of a momentary collapse. And counting on a repeat of last June's script - a surgical stunning blow and the announcement of victory. When this did not happen, and the entire region was destabilized, the US administration fell into a position that was afraid: the inability to get out of the game without the risk of looking like a loser. Politically, Trump needed the support not so much of the Israeli lobby, but of a vast and wealthy community of American evangelicals for whom Israel is important as the site of the future second coming of Christ. Personally, the defining factor is the son-in-law of President Jared Kushner, who is closely associated with Israeli interests and specifically with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s circle.

Possible outcome of the war

The map of West Asia should be two factors in the future: Israel’s military dominance over the entire region and Israel’s financial and economic intertwining with the Gulf monarchies, much of which the US will extract. Turkey remains an independent player, but firstly, it is a member of NATO and there are levers of governance, and secondly, Israel already believes that relations with Ankara will have to be clarified at the next stage.

Israel seems to be interested in a radical scenario up to the dismantling of Iran in its current form – not only political, but also territorial. But simply destroying the military-political influence of the Ayatollahs is also an acceptable outcome.

But even if we assume that the military defeat of Iran will occur in a relatively short time, it is not clear. The example of Iraq-2003, when the biggest problems began just after George W. Bush declared a military victory, promises little good. In Washington, the Syrian scenario would have been preferred after the fall of the Assad family’s rule: the Islamists who came to power were capable and able to negotiate. But, firstly, it is rather luck, secondly, the process is by no means over, thirdly, the scale is quite different now.

The consequences of war on a global scale

Ignoring legal procedures has reached a new level. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. administration was still trying to get approval – both domestically and in the UN Security Council. Trump’s cabinet doesn’t do that in principle. The use of force, including bypassing the accepted norms and against the obviously weaker rival, is not news. But the United States and Israel cultivate in international relations a bare force that is almost openly justified by the mere fact of its existence. Threats to many states are being sent back centuries to an era when diplomatic rituals were considered unnecessary. The United States is setting the tone for world politics. We are waiting for Epigon followers.

The decapitating Israeli strike (publicly approved by the United States) that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader with his entire family and a significant part of the military leadership deserves special attention. The practice that Israel has long developed with regard to the leaders of paramilitary and terrorist groups has not previously been applied to internationally recognized heads of state. What conclusions the leaders of different countries who are in conflict with Israel and the United States or risk such a conflict depend on their capabilities. But leaders of nuclear powers who are not allies of the United States have the right to think about the exceptional importance not only of having an arsenal, but also of readiness to use it.

Donald Trump’s approach (not only in this war, but in principle) denies any institutions other than those he personally creates for himself (the Peace Council, which, by the way, is also silent). Trump intends to deal with each country individually, without reason believing that in a one-on-one format, America is stronger than almost everyone except China and to some extent Russia.

Any attempts by countries to combine the potential to strengthen positions in the face of Washington, Trump is almost furious. And since no one wants to be subject to his outbursts of anger and receive new duties or other punitive measures, everyone, including China, prefers to maneuver and evade bilateral deals.

The choice in favor of maximizing their own combat capability is now made by everyone who can. But the disintegration of the fabric of international relations, to which the most determined world actors are now working, will create more and more problems for everyone. And it is easier to solve them by combining efforts for their own interests and security. Including to curb the most destructive international players.