THE IRAN WAR - BEYOND THE IMMEDIATELY VISIBLE - PART 2

 Wars don’t just trade missiles and make headlines—they reshape politics, economics and more importantly lives. This piece digs into the Iran mess by looking past the obvious blasts at the quieter forces pulling strings underneath.

(Balachandran M)

Caveat

All the inputs are based on historical facts available in the public domain. You may have a different interpretation, and I respect your right to think differently. You are welcome to point out differences in facts or voice your interpretations.  Please post it in the comment section.

Recap Part 1

We had a quick tour through the history of Iran's nuclear program and how it came about. We also saw how the present regime came into being. We also saw that America’s current war on Iran began just the day after the two parties left the conference table, promising to meet in Vienna to sort out the modalities of the treaty and the road map to peace. Treachery, some might call it, and a smart military move, others would name it. 

First, they said, the US-Israel aerial strike on Iran was to neutralise Iran’s ambition to weaponise its nuclear program. The moment they scored a successful strike on the complex, where the Ayatollah was, it became a call for regime change. Confirmation of the death of Iran's supreme leader followed.  

Towards the end of the article, we asked two questions and concluded on the promise that “We will crystal gaze in the next part.” 

Let us pick up from where we left off. We shall make reasonable inferences from the bits and pieces we can gather from the public domain. 

Q 1. Why were President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suddenly talking about regime change? What could have been the reason(s)?

Pretext?

When a nation goes to war against another, there is always a rationale, an objective, declared and a few undeclared ones. There will always be a desired end state, too. The declared purpose is often in line with widely accepted legal norms. The real purpose, or rationale, whatever the form of governance in the aggressor country, is seldom announced. It will be known only to the select few who decide to go to war. What is announced is for public consumption and to gain a semblance of acceptance. 

India went to war in 1971, on humanitarian grounds to mitigate the refugee problem caused by Pakistan’s operation Searchlight in Mar 1971. India supported the Bengali people’s right to live safely and return home. Strategists believe it was an opportunity well used to achieve a far greater geopolitical objective. Russia’s war in Ukraine also has a reason for public consumption and a different one geopolitically. 

The publicly stated aim for the US-Israel to wage war against Iran had been the neutralisation of Iran’s nuclear assets. Israel and the US had been labouring hard for a long time to convince the world that Iran harboured nuclear ambitions and was on the verge of weaponising its assets. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iran’s hands were certainly a threat to the existence of the world, specifically Israel. 

Everyone knew that the WMD in Iraq were a lie. Everybody knew that it was a powerful narrative based on false inputs. The world knew that the US was in it to ensure the continuance of the petrodollar and to strengthen its own position as the destiny-maker in the Gulf region. Nobody did anything as the powerful lay, a country that chose to stand up, to waste. Maybe no one wanted to, out of fear of the consequences.  

Interestingly, both the United States and Iran were among the countries that signed the NPT on 1 July 1968, when the treaty was opened for signature. Iran was willing to be subject to the IAEA. Their opposition was against the American interference. Much like the WMD in Iraq, everyone knows that the WMD in Iran is another lie. The fact of nuclear asset possession notwithstanding, the 12-day war from 13 June 2025 was called off by the US and Israel, claiming that they had obliterated Iran’s nuclear ambitions. So, the nuclear asset story was a dud to begin with, under the current circumstances. But who cares about truth against someone mighty? 

Then, something happened in Iran. 

In December 2025, there was a huge public protest in Iran against the government. The unrest was the consequence of terrible hardships faced by the public due to soaring inflation, sharp depreciation of the Iranian Rial, soaring unemployment, worsening economic conditions, and already reeling under International sanctions. 

The US Treasury Secretary, Scott Besant, in his testimony on 5 February 2026 before the U.S. Senate Banking Committee in Washington, D.C., stated that Washington had engineered a dollar shortage in Iran to ensure that the Rial fell into a tailspin. “What we have done is created a dollar shortage in the country… It came to a swift and grand culmination in December when one of the largest banks in Iran went under.” Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos on 20 January 2026, he called the US sanctions policy “economic statecraft — no shots fired.” 

So, the protests on the Iranian streets were, in fact, engineered by the USA to occur. The protest started when shopkeepers and merchants in the Grand Bazaar demonstrated against the government. The university students soon joined the protest, and it soon spread to other cities across the country. The protesters called for ousting the government. On 8 Jan 2026, Western estimates say, more than a million people came out against the government. The government ordered a crackdown. The death toll, according to the Iranian Government, in the crackdown was 3117, but the largest estimate, according to Western media, puts the figure around 32,000. The social media handles were now full of stories about the extent of repression. Fact-checks say that most of it was manufactured. The whole world, or most of it, turned against Iran, at least emotionally.  

The sheer size of the anti-government protest, the biggest since 1979, must have given hope to the US-Israel combine to seek regime change. They must have decided to strike when the opportunity presented itself. The American military buildup from Dec 25 to February 26 continued and was justified as pressure to drive the negotiation in Geneva towards the end desired by the USA.  There were voices in the USA that questioned the logic. After all, they had claimed to obliterate the facilities. 

When a big lie is told openly, it seems to be believed. When someone, powerful enough to hurt and with no qualms of hurting, lies through their teeth, is there another option but look like they believe? It doesn't matter anyway as long as the stick is falling on somebody else. So, the world was told to believe that Iran was about to assemble WMD, and the USA was doing everything peacefully to stop it. The Geneva talks were part of that peaceful initiative. The written script was playing out.

But the Iranian regime was repressive! Should they not be dealt with for the good of the Iranians? 

Social media was full of scenes that resembled screenshots right out of horror movies, representing the state of people in Iran. Over a short period of time, Iran became a fundamentalist nation, the bed of all evil, the sole sponsor of terror. America, after all, having ordained itself to rectify such evils, had to root it out. The USA find it okay to do business with North Korea, China, and Russia, which are powerful regimes. It also has flourishing business with monarchies in the Gulf. If America decides to invade another country, any country for that matter, it would first create a narrative and paint that country as the source of all evil in the world.  

Who would be the next axis of evil? What happens if America claims ownership of land or rights to a percentage of a business that a country does?  Ridiculous idea? ( Matter for discussion in the next article) 

Everyone with basic common sense knew that Israel would be looking to assassinate the Ayatollah, though the assassination of a head of state is unlawful.

The Iranian leadership, having brutally quelled the rebellion, seems to have been sure of safety. It is widely believed that Mossad has infiltrated every rung of the Iranian government. Credit must be given for the presence of the Israeli and American intelligence operatives within a regime that is sworn against Israel. They must have elicited definite, detailed inputs about the proposed meeting in the high-security area. Israel, never one to let such an opportunity go to waste, just grabbed the chance and executed the operation. Before the US – Israel combine confirmed to the world about the death of the top leadership in the air strike, they changed the objective. Disabling Iran's nuclear capability was no longer the objective. It became regime change and the modus operandi? Remove the top leadership. The new stated aim had already been achieved. It was now easy to declare the mission a grand success.  

In an 8-minute video on February 28, 2026, President Trump called upon the people of Iran, saying (only parts reproduced here), “Finally, to the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be, probably, your only chance for generations. For many years, you have asked for America’s help. But you never got it. No President was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight.” So let’s see how you respond. America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny and to unleash the prosperous and glorious future that is close within your reach. This is the moment for action. Do not let it pass.” 

However, a few things happened, and many others did not.

Yes, there were reports of jubilation and rejoicing in the death of the supreme leader in some places.  There was also an outpouring of grief. Contrary to the US-Israel combine’s expectation, there was no surge onto the streets to take over the government. They did not hunt down their rulers. The few celebratory gatherings, mostly fuelled by social media handles, fizzled out faster than they appeared. The uproar for regime change, as expected, just did not happen.

The Iranians just let the moment for action pass.

The top hierarchy of Iran's war machine had been destroyed. The U.S. military command responsible for operations in the Middle East issued a statement saying their strike had “cut off the head of the snake” in reference to destroying the IRGC’s main headquarters and command structure in Tehran. Unfortunately, the structure did not collapse. Leadership voids were immediately filled. Worse for America and Israel, the leadership with immense authority got distributed - Not delegated. The mosaic structure of war fighting, planned and practised, kicked in.  The IRGC is said to have divided itself into over 30 autonomous units free to do whatever it wants. For one huge snake, they now have more than 30 snakes to handle. They are equally potent, too. Iran’s Military response to the attack was immediate and fierce, unlike the calibrated response of June 2025. The aggressors might bomb Iran ‘to the stone age,’ but as such, they are living in deprivation. Therefore, the punishment should not make much difference in the physical suffering. However, they now have a cause to suffer for.

At first look, this outing has given them a semblance of instant victory and an effective diversion from domestic irritants. Anyone talking against the US government engaged in war can easily be painted as anti-national. That is the new mantra to shut out opposing or differing voices.  It will be naive to believe that both the USA and Israel are so far away from the real picture in Iran. With such deep ingress into the society, the intelligence agencies would have reported what the response would likely be.

So, nuclear disarmament or regime change were more of a pretext. There has to be some other purpose beyond nuclear assets and regime change. 

While many experts talk about the Epstein files and the impending elections in the US and Israel as the primary drivers of this sudden aggression, I believe it goes far beyond. Iran was the only country in the Gulf region left standing up to the USA. It had to be subdued. All other countries are in some military security and political cooperative treaty with the USA.

Saudi Arabia (1) is a long-standing strategic partner; major arms buyer, and an energy partner. The United Arab Emirates (2) is one of Washington’s closest Arab security partners. Qatar (3) hosts the largest U.S. air base in the Middle East, Al Udeid Air Base. Kuwait (4) is an important logistical hub for U.S. operations since the 1991 Gulf War. Bahrain (5) is the headquarters of the U.S. Navy’s United States Fifth Fleet. Oman (6) provides strategic access to ports and airfields near the Strait of Hormuz. These six countries together form the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which cooperates closely with the U.S. on regional security. In addition, Jordan is an important security and intelligence partner. Post-war conditions forced Iraq to be in a security cooperation with the USA. Israel, after all, is an extension of America.

Who pays for the American presence in the Gulf?  According to details available in the public domain, American military bases in the Gulf are largely financed by the host countries themselves. Gulf monarchies pay for construction, infrastructure, and sometimes operational costs as part of their security partnership with the USA.

Why should America come all the way into the Gulf region to ensure safety, stability and good governance?

It's the story of petro dollars.

A petrodollar is a dollar earned for every drop of oil sold. In 1971, after the collapse of the gold standard, the U.S. made arrangements with Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer in the region, to price oil, only in dollars. It was a master stroke. In return US agreed to provide military protection and security guarantees to Saudi Arabia and sell advanced weapons and military equipment. Basically, the USA guaranteed longevity to the Saudi monarchy. By no measure can the Saudi Monarchy be considered to facilitate democracy!

The other Gulf states, all of them monarchies of varying sizes followed. The world’s strongest military was undertaking the continuation of monarchies in the region. A stable Gulf now required a strong U.S. military presence and beneficial political relationships in the region. It also meant the petrodollar continued, unquestioned. Stable Gulf means Stable Dollar. A stronger dollar means a stronger US economy, all paid for by everyone else.

Petrodollar mandates that any country that wants to buy oil must first hold U.S. dollars. This spurred global demand for the dollar. Oil-exporting countries now had dollars in their hands. They invested it in U.S. banks or U.S. government bonds, in a process known as petrodollar recycling. This just ensured a consistent and growing demand for dollars. It helped finance U.S. deficits and strengthened the dollar. The USA could keep printing dollar bills. Also, whoever controls or influences the main oil region controls the global currency system.

What if relations sour?  They learn bitter lessons.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein in 2000 announced it would sell its oil in euros instead of U.S. dollars under the UN Oil-for-Food programme, and by 2002, Iraq had converted billions of its reserves from dollars to euros. This not only weakened the dollar but also questioned the superpower. If other producers followed Iraq, it could be catastrophic for the dollar and the American economy. After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iraqi oil sales quickly returned to being priced in dollars. Everything is perfect. Regime change happened. But Iraq lies decimated. 

Muammar Gaddafi of Libya was another man who thought of challenging the petro dollar. He proposed A pan-African currency backed by gold, called the gold dinar. He urged African oil producers to sell oil in this currency rather than dollars or euros. The aim was to reduce reliance on Western currencies and increase Africa’s financial independence. Libya also had large gold reserves, which made the idea plausible. The plan culminated in the Libyan intervention in which Gaddafi was removed and killed. 

In the last 50 years, the USA has been directly or indirectly involved in several regime change operations. These have been done through Direct military invasion, like in Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). Now attempting in Iran. It has been done through covert CIA support for coups to back rebel groups, or through sanctions and political pressure to force leadership change Like in Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras and Syria.  The US has always claimed that these actions were to defend democracy, stop terrorism, prevent a nuclear weapons programme or even to protect civilians.  In real terms, these were always in pursuit of Cold War containment of the Soviet Union, control of energy resources, protection of U.S. economic interests, maintaining geopolitical influence or securing military bases and sea routes. 

Interestingly, during the Cold War (1970s–1980s), the regime changes were mostly about stopping communism. However, after 1991, the justification shifted to terrorism, democracy, or humanitarian intervention. Regime changes in Iraq, Libya and Venezuela are linked directly to petro dollar. The US always had an appealing narrative backing its intervention.

The 1953 coup in Iran is considered a classic oil-related regime change. Mohammad Mosaddegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister, was removed through a CIA–MI6 sponsored coup. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became the Shah. The Intervention was justified as a move to prevent a communist takeover. In reality, it was against Mosaddegh’s decision to nationalise Iranian oil, which threatened the business interests of British and Western oil companies. The 1979 regime change not only brought Islamisation, but Iran became overtly Anti-American. 

Iran did not learn from Iraq or Libya. Iran refused to learn. Iran challenged the petrodollar system. It tried to trade oil in euros and other currencies. If Iran succeeded in doing so for long, it was not just a weak dollar, but a broken US economy and a superpower that looked powerless. Trump had to MAGA. Impending elections and Epstein would only have triggered it. 

Crystal Gazing    

Q2. (i) Now that they have hit the top echelons of the Iranian Regime, what lies ahead?  

We will not discuss the details of the arsenal held by the three countries or compare their capabilities because it is a different matter altogether. We do not know what would be used by either side or where they would be used. Remember, some experts said that the Russia-Ukraine war would be over in weeks based on the weapon counts! We also will not count losses because for both sides, losses mean different things. For the US or Israel, each body bag coming home or an aircraft falling from the sky is far more important domestically than Iran, for whom there is nothing to lose as such, whereas each person dead will become a rallying point, at least as of now.  

What lies ahead? How would the war unfold?

Certainly, an uncertain future. It concerns us a far lot more than what is being said. 

The US Might

While the world stares at an uncertain future, we can be certain that Iran is being bombed all over and will be bombed even harder. The might of the US arsenal will be brought upon both the inhabited areas and the vast wastelands of Iran. America and Israel will carry out precision bombings from the skies freely for some more time. They will take out the missile launchers, air defence stations, even if primitive. They will decimate any building they think is of some military or political value. Iran’s naval assets will be taken out and sent to the depths. The imbalance is too high to bridge.  

“For some more time?” Yes. Only for some more time. The USA will not waste its costly guided and smart munitions on an enemy who has been bombed out. With the skies over Iran left to themselves, the US-Israel combine does not need any more PGMs. They will use more of dumb bombs that will fall like stones and then explode. It will not have to labour to find a specific target or manoeuvre itself to the designed destination. It will have to just fall and kill. It will kill. 

What about Iran? 

Iran doesn't have anything remotely to match them in numbers or quality. Iran cannot reach the American mainland, at least not with anything directly from Iran. Iran’s response, slowly and surely, will dissipate in intensity and quantity. But there's a small problem. The remnants of the IRGC would retreat (if not already done) into the mountains and would strike with what they can when they can. Israel had claimed that Hamas and Hezbollah had been decimated. Yet, they still come up with an occasional missile and rocket. These occasional projectiles will also kill if not intercepted in time, and interception will require 24/7 monitoring. That is a costly affair. Israel can afford it. Iran will join the party, with its own limited assets. 

Any victory for the USA is expected. Therefore, in public perception, no American victory is spectacular unless they elicit an unconditional surrender from Iran. Body bags getting home can be a sombre sight and be a political burden, albeit for a little while, and loss of even one aircraft or material damage is not doing any good. But political minds know how to manage it. 

The war is no longer bilateral.  It has become regional. America has military bases in all the GCC countries. Americans thought that Iran would hesitate to hit these locations because any strike on these locations would end up being considered as attacks on those countries by Iran. Given the Shia - Sunni animosity and the differences that have been cultivated against Iran, the USA would have been sure of instigating these host countries to turn against Iran, especially if bombs fell on non-American assets like refineries, hotels, hospitals, etc. Even if Iran does not fire, the USA or Israel could do them the favour. They only need to fire a few missiles into any or all of these countries. It will be assumed that those came from Iran. There are reports that it has happened. Iran has already told the neighbours that they have fired only at US assets. How much they believe is third to take. 

Let us now see what happened to the US bases so far. 

In Qatar, it has the Al Udeid Air Base.  This is the largest and most strategically important U.S. air base in the Middle East. It holds thousands of U.S. personnel and undertakes extensive aircraft operations and aerial refuelling. It also houses CENTCOM's forward headquarters functions. Iran reportedly targeted this major base during its early retaliatory strikes. How much it has impacted the operation will become evident soon.

The Muharraq Airfield in Bahrain is a U.S. Navy-run facility adjacent to Bahrain International Airport used for logistics and support. Bahrain also provides space to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet. It is the central naval command and control hub for U.S. maritime operations throughout the Persian Gulf and surrounding waters. Iran launched ballistic missiles and drones targeting the U.S. Fifth Fleet headquarters in Manama on 28 Feb 2026. The base sustained damage to radar and facilities.

Camp Arifjan in Kuwait is a major U.S. Army logistics and support base that also hosts units from other services. An Iranian drone/missile struck a U.S. operations site at Port Shuaiba. The Ali Al Salem Air Base, an air operations hub supporting transport, refuelling, and combat aircraft missions, is said to have received Iranian missiles and drones. 

The Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates is a Key U.S. Air Force facility shared with the UAE Air Force. It supports surveillance, strike, refuelling, and ISR operations.  Iranian missiles and drones were fired at this facility, also. 

The Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, which houses air defence and command functions facilities, is also said to have been targeted. Iran is now said to be targeting US embassies and their assets in the region.  

What about Iran’s losses? 

Destruction, as far as the eye can see. It is easy to predict it in general. Militarily, Iran is likely to suffer even more casualties and losses. They will take out Iran’s Navy and Air Force, or even traces of it. Killing Iranians will be easier than getting them to side with the Americans. That will need a miracle. (They say Miracles do happen). 

What lies ahead?  

Trust is America is declining. Canada has decided to chart its own course, and Europe has been publicly ridiculed by Trump. Spain has shown them the door on their airfields. The British PM has been criticised by Trump for not jumping into the war on their side. Slowly, nations are getting to realise. How this aspect builds up is another matter. 

Back to Iran, 

America and Israel would need serious consideration before it sets foot on its land, but will continue with aerial assaults. Iran has a problem. It’s geography.  

Iran’s geography is one of the main reasons military planners consider a large-scale ground invasion extremely difficult. The country is often described by strategists as a “natural fortress.” Several geographic features combine to slow or channel any invading army.

The Zagros Mountains becomes The biggest obstacle for a land invasion from Iraq is the Zagros Mountains. Running about 1,500 km along Iran’s western border and just about 2500 - 3000 metres high, the roads and narrow mountain passes force the invaders through predictable choke points. The Zagros forced Saddam Hussein to try for eight years, from 1980 to 1988, but found it difficult to get further into Iran. The Alborz Mountains (Barrier in the North) run along the Caspian Sea. It is the northern approach towards Tehran, but it doesn't allow free movement of heavy armour. The two huge deserts, Dasht-e Kavir and Dasht-e Lut, are some of the hottest places on Earth. The Salt flats will be a logistical nightmare. Tehran, Natanz, Arak) deep inside the country. The occupying army will have to fight for hundreds of kilometres after crossing the mountains. Iran has been through invasions in the past, but in today’s scenario, it will be easier to bomb Iran to hell, till American and Israeli stocks run out, rather than put boots on the ground. 

Now, let us say, the US or Israel land their troops in Tehran or such other places. It is possible, though the probability in sane thoughts will be low. At best, they will remain contained in and around where they landed and make no difference to the country as such. America will be extended and committed much beyond what they have ever been. This could help China and Russia more than indirectly. 

Regime change doesn't happen that easily, though regimes have changed thrice in Iran. Iran is a land of tribes. Persians, the most advanced amongst them, dominate the country politically. They are located primarily in Central Iran. Then there are the Kurds, the largest stateless ethnic group in the Middle East, spread across Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. They have been demanding a separate country for a long time, and have been promised many times. Now, others don't seem to trust them easily. There are Azeri Turks in the Northwest Iran (Azerbaijan region – Tabriz, Ardabil), the Lurs (Lori Tribes), the Western mountains (Lorestan, Khuzestan) and many more. 

While the US or Israel could try to lure one or more tribes to their side, the impact will be minimal. It will only end up in chaos. 

How would the Iran War impact the world?

Who could be the next axis of evil? 

We will see it in the next article.