Beyond narratives: Real motives behind Iran war

2026-03-20 - 00:01

AS the United States–Israel war against Iran enters its third week, there are still no clear signs of de-escalation. The conflict, initiated jointly by Washington and Tel Aviv, continues to raise serious questions about its origins, justification and broader geopolitical objectives. Notably, there has been no widely acknowledged provocation from Tehran that would warrant such a large-scale military confrontation. In defending the decision to launch the war, President Donald Trump argued that action was necessary, claiming that Iran would have attacked US and Israel if left unchecked. However, this assertion has been challenged even within American political circles. Senator Tim Kaine publicly rejected the claim, stating that Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States and that available intelligence did not justify military intervention. His stance reflects a broader skepticism about the rationale presented for the war. Trump also cited Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons as a primary justification. Yet this reasoning appears inconsistent with earlier statements he made following US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025, when he declared that those sites had been destroyed and that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been set back by decades. These contradictions have fueled criticism of the administration’s narrative and raised concerns about the coherence and credibility of its foreign policy decisions. Given the absence of an immediate threat, the question arises: why did US and Israel choose to attack Iran? One possible explanation lies in Israel’s long-standing strategic ambitions in the Middle East. Under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel has pursued policies aimed at reshaping the regional balance of power in its favour. Iran, with its opposition to Israeli dominance and its refusal to normalize relations under frameworks such as the Abraham Accords, has remained a central obstacle to these ambitions. The Abraham Accords, signed between Israel and several Arab states, were presented as a pathway to regional peace and cooperation. However, critics argue that they also reflect a broader alignment of Middle Eastern elites with US and Israeli strategic interests. Iran, by contrast, has consistently rejected these arrangements, positioning itself as a counterweight to both Israeli and American influence in the region. Its political leadership, including the Revolutionary Guard Corps, has emphasized resistance to what it views as external domination. The role of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states further complicates the situation. These countries maintain extensive defense and security partnerships with the United States, often justified as necessary to counter Iranian influence. Yet historically, Iran has not initiated direct military aggression against these states in recent decades. Instead, the region has witnessed conflicts in which external powers have played decisive roles. For instance, during the Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988), several Gulf States supported Iraq under Saddam Hussein, a conflict that devastated both nations. In the years that followed, Iraq itself became a target of US military interventions, culminating in regime change and prolonged instability. This pattern has led some analysts to argue that US security arrangements in the region are less about protecting Gulf States and more about safeguarding Israeli interests. The financial dimension is also significant: Gulf countries have invested heavily in defense agreements and arms purchases, contributing substantially to the US defense industry. President Trump’s visits to the region in 2017 and 2025 resulted in massive defense deals worth hundreds of billions of dollars. While these agreements were framed as strengthening regional security, critics contend that they deepened divisions within the Middle East and reinforced dependency on external powers. Another critical miscalculation in the current conflict appears to be the expectation that internal dissent within Iran would weaken the state. The targeting of senior Iranian leadership was seemingly intended to destabilize the government and encourage public unrest. However, this strategy has largely backfired. Instead of fragmentation, Iranian society has demonstrated increased cohesion, with the population rallying around national sovereignty in the face of external aggression. This outcome highlights a recurring theme in regional politics: external pressure often strengthens internal unity rather than undermining it; US military aggression is both ineffective and counterproductive. The risk of broader regional escalation is another pressing concern. As Iran retaliates against US military bases in the Middle East, the conflict is increasingly drawing in neighboring states. There are indications that some Gulf countries are being encouraged to take a more active military role, raising concern of a wider regional conflict among Muslims states. Such an escalation would have far-reaching consequences beyond Middle East. Besides, the absence of a clear US exit strategy further exacerbates the risks. By aligning closely with Israeli objectives, Washington may find itself drawn into a prolonged conflict with no definitive resolution. Critics argue that this approach reflects a reactive rather than strategic policy framework, one that prioritizes short-term objectives over long-term stability. The killing of prominent Iranian figures like Ali Larijani, has reduced the chances of a negotiated settlement. This development underscores the broader sidelining of diplomacy in favour of military solutions. The ongoing war against Iran appears to be driven by a complex interplay of strategic, political and ideological agenda of a Greater Israeli State. While official narratives emphasize security concerns, underlying motivations may include regional power dynamics, economic interests and long-standing geopolitical rivalries. As the conflict continues, the need for a coherent and balanced approach becomes increasingly urgent. Without it, the region risks descending into a prolonged and devastating cycle of violence with global repercussions. — The writer is Professor of Politics and IR at International Islamic University, Islamabad. (drmkedu@gmail.com)