The interests and objectives of Israel have long been clear. Over the past two and a half years, Israel has largely succeeded in eliminating or suppressing Iran’s proxies in neighboring states. From the beginning, however, the primary target has been Tehran, specifically, regime change and potential (con)federalization in a manner comparable to what was implemented in Iraq and, as some would prefer, in Syria. The recent removal of Maduro from Venezuela is also connected to the present developments, given that the country served as a main hub in South America for financing Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel seeks to radically weaken all significant regional powers, rendering them dysfunctional, less threatening, or ideally cooperative, ensuring the containment of adversaries and a more secure strategic environment. Iran is especially perceived as an existential threat.
American interest in this conflict is less transparent. Donald Trump, used to be the self-styled “president of peace” and advocate of ending the war in Ukraine. Suddenly, he appears to have converted to a neoconservative foreign policy outlook reminiscent of assertive imperial interventionism. As noted by Fyodor Lukyanov, the abduction or elimination of state leaders can only intensify fanaticism, radicalization, and desperation among affected societies. For such systems, democratization poses an inherent threat, implying weakness. Consequently, one may anticipate a global decline in the significance of democracy and a corresponding rise in authoritarian and even totalitarian tendencies. Domestically, this trajectory may also create serious difficulties for the Republican Party ahead of this year’s midterm elections due to disillusionment among MAGA supporters.
Moreover, it seems that Trump has led the US into an adventure that calls into question its current status as a leading global power. This war appears to exceed a limited regional intervention. Rather, it constitutes a testing ground for numerous long-debated conflicting strategic concepts. Iran is a significant regional power that, despite decades of sanctions, has consistently invested in technological development and modern weaponry, especially advanced ballistic missile systems. The conflict will reveal the true extent of their capability and the degree of internal cohesion and resistance potential within Iranian society. While the activation of Hezbollah was expected, other Iranian allies, such as Shiite groups in Iraq, have thus far remained on the sidelines.
Other global players also see high stakes in the outcome of this conflict. Should Iran manage to stabilize internally and prolong the war, it may assume a position analogous to Ukraine in the West’s confrontation with Russia. China and Russia are unlikely to intervene directly but are deeply interested and affected parties. Following the Twelve-Day War, substantial quantities of weaponry and military advisers from both countries reportedly arrived in Iran. Iran is already drawing upon Russian experience from the war in Ukraine, such as the deployment of drone swarms to pave the way for ballistic missile strikes. After Syria and Venezuela, a rapid defeat and regime change of Iran would be a significant blow to Russian, and to some extent Chinese, prestige, making expanded assistance and support to Iran likely. A prolonged war would also divert Western resources and weaponry away from Ukraine.
While Turkey’s ambivalent stance toward the conflict was expected, the pronounced restraint of European states, despite their nominal vocal support of the United States, has been notable. Keir Starmer rejected involving the United Kingdom in military operations. Spain prohibited the use of American bases on its territory for offensive actions. These decisions reflect a new European reality: the political and security weight of Europe’s large and increasingly significant Muslim population. Although preventive measures against Islamist terrorism have been strengthened, Muslim communities constitute an important electoral base. It is becoming politically risky, particularly for left-leaning governments, to forfeit their support. For the first time in recent history, USA can not count on direct military support of UK and other NATO partners, which can also undermine American global primacy among the rest of the World.
Beside these geopolitical stakes, this conflict is particularly instructive regarding the evolution of contemporary warfare. For the third time, Israel achieved substantial initial success by eliminating a significant portion of the adversary’s leadership. They were capitalizing on superiority in intelligence and technology and striking while negotiations were ongoing. Technology, artificial intelligence, and field intelligence operations are combined with concentrated mass force and preventive strikes. Consequently, Iran has directed attention toward data centers as critical targets. The war resembles a video game, conducted through missiles and drones capable of traveling thousands of kilometers. The primary objective is the rapid destruction of the opponent’s air defense systems, an aim Israel largely accomplished last year.
To summarize, it is evident that the old international order has eroded, giving way to a “jungle” environment in which power alone defines positions. Over a decade ago, Graham Allison warned that systemic transitions significantly increase the likelihood of war(s). The United States continues to enjoy a decisive advantage in technology and military power and will evidently employ it while it can. Iran, it seems, represents the first serious test of that primacy.
