Geopolitical reckoning of Middle East turmoil

2026-03-11 - 22:24

THE current Middle East turmoil caused by the US-Israel imposed war against Iran on the pretext of regime change, has deep links with a geopolitical reckoning of this crisis, which unfolds its internal and external dynamics. Internally, this crisis shows Iran’s rift with US. Externally, the turmoil unfolds an extended surge in US-Israel perceived strategic interests to gain control over the Persian Gulf and its fossil fuels, thereby transforming Iran into a deep fragmented state, whereby both Washington and Tel Aviv could try to establish their strategic threshold beyond the Middle east, particularly the Eurasian heartland, including the South Asian region through their partnership with India and Afghanistan, with a motive to exert pressure on a rising middle power Pakistan. In theory, this is an ambitious US-Israel agenda while in practice, it is globally alarming. Needless to say, the ongoing US-Israel military campaign against Iran–conceived byregime change, has exposed glaring fault lines in US foreign policy in the region—paves the way towards a high-risk escalation trap. It signals that Washington takes risks that undermine its strategic credibility and regional partnerships. This US policy shift from deterrence to direct confrontation characterizes an ominous departure from decades old legacy of cautious diplomacy, potentially alienating allies wary of US policy direction. And yet, Tehran’s retaliatory posture accompanied with growing regional alliances seemingly suggests that US-driven unilateral strategy may backfire, resulting in weakening Washington’s influence in the region. US-Israel war objectives: While attacking Iran amid the third round of nuclear talks clearly indicates that the US and Israel are prioritizing the elimination of Iran’s military capabilities and regional influence over a negotiated settlement. It signals that diplomatic alternatives are considered a, or perhaps the only, route for Iran to avoid full-scale conflict. The argument that the US-Israel stance against Iran is preconceived and pre-engineered is supported by the recurring emphasis on Iran’s nuclear ambitions despite limited evidence of active weaponization. The stated US objectives—preventing nuclear development and destroying missile capabilities—align with broader geopolitical aims rather than genuine security threats. Undeniably, there are no legal basis of this war. The US- Israeli claims that Iran posed an imminent threat to the US security lack credible evidence. Arguably, the US-Israel war on Iran is manufactured under the guise of a nuclear standoff—particularly when occurring during ongoing negotiations—suggest the conflict is driven by geopolitical objectives rather than immediate nuclear proliferation threats. Evidence from early 2026 indicates that the US military action often overrides diplomatic breakthroughs, pointing to a strategic, rather than defensive, motivation. Understandably, the US-Israel attacks have occurred even when diplomatic channels were open and showing progress, such as in February 2026, when negotiations in Geneva/Oman reported potential deals regarding uranium stockpiling. The strikes have targeted not just nuclear sites but also Iranian missile production, naval assets and air defense capabilities, pointing toward a broader goal of diminishing Iran’s conventional deterrence and regional influence. By attacking Iran, the US and Israel seek to isolate Tehran, preventing it from rising within a new global, multipolar order and cementing a new Middle East alignment that heavily favors US-Israel-Gulf security cooperation. Analysts suggest this war is a component of a wider Western strategy to prevent the decline of US-led unipolar dominance in West Asia, specifically countering Russian and Chinese influence that often aligns with Iranian interests. Consequential implications: Moreover, the argument suggests the US-Israel actions against Iran are part of a broader strategy to weaken Iran’s regional influence, particularly by targeting its nuclear and missile capabilities. While the stated goals include preventing nuclear proliferation and dismantling missile infrastructure, critics argue these efforts also aim to isolate Iran strategically. However, as confirmed from US own sources, that there is no credible evidence that Iran posed any imminent threat to US security. The destabilization of Iran and its neighbors is viewed as a mechanism to re-establish US dominance in critical Eurasian corridors, including South Asia, whereby pressurizing Pakistan to align with Western interests. Yet Israel-backed US strategy faces a global backlash, revealing cracks in America’s long-standing diplomatic and military posture. As the conflict escalates, the US faces mounting pressure to balance deterrence with de-escalation, challenging its credibility as a stabilizing force. Moreover, Israel is mistakenly ambitious to gain control in Afghanistan via India to exert pressure on Pakistan. President Trump’s strategy to use Kurdish forces to disintegrate Iran is a high-risk stratagem signaling an unpredictable success inviting complex operational and political challenges. Substantially, analysts argue that bombing campaigns (such as those in June 2025) are unlikely to permanently disable Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Instead, such attacks may compel Iran to abandon its commitment to non-proliferation and, if given a reprieve, rebuild its nuclear infrastructure, making them more aggressive. The conflict escalation ladder shows that it may involve more countries, particularly Russia and China, while causing severe, long-lasting damage to infrastructure and civilian populations, as evidenced by the targeting of residential areas and increased casualties. In summary, it is justifiably argued that the US-Israel imposed war on Iran is based on a false premise, driven by a desire to satisfy specific, possibly politically motivated, demands rather than addressing an immediate threat to the United States. The resulting instability often strengthens the regime’s resolve, forces it to rely on “asymmetrical tools” for retaliation, and increases the danger of a wider, uncontrollable war. Thus, the conflict’s real motivations appear more about regional dominance and preemptive security than stated non-proliferation goals. Make no mistake, any US-Israel strategy to render Iran into an Iraq-cum-Gaza déjà vu will be self-destructive. Thus, instead of expanding the Iran war theatre, Washington must adopt a restraint ceasefire strategy which is the only way out of the current crisis. For Pakistan, given the hovering threats from above, its operation Ghazab Lil Haq in Afghanistan serves as a befitting counter-strategy to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity. —The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also a Peace and Conflict Studies expert, is member of the European Consortium of Political Research, including Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law. (rizvipeaceresearcher@gmail.com)