Against the assessments US- Israel went ahead with the attack which seemingly contradicts the outcomes of the recent talks, during which the Iranian foreign minister categorically stated that Iran would not pursue a nuclear bomb. Major financial incentives for America — including proposed involvement in controlling Iran’s oil and gas sector — were reportedly introduced into the discussions. This raises the question: why proceed with military action?
The military action, however, appears unrelated to the talks themselves. Instead, it seems aimed at facilitating a leadership transition in Iran — one that requires external pressure to materialise. Especially now that her key client Iran's spiritual and defacto leader Ali Khameini is old and in ill health.
Although Donald Trump has clearly stated regime change as a primary objective and has called upon the Iranian people to assume control following military operations, there is no coherent opposition capable of leading such a transition. Consequently, the responsibility would fall upon Iran’s military establishment, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that Trump has directly threatened the IRGC and called on them to surrender. Yet such a surrender cannot realistically occur through airstrikes alone; historically, it would require American troops on the ground, as was the case in Iraq.
However, this possibility has been publicly negated by Trump. As The New York Times states:
"It is a high-risk move: There are almost no successful examples in modern history of regime change through an air campaign. But administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance, have made clear they imagine a swift campaign with no U.S. troops on the ground" (28/02/26)
If ground deployment is off the table, the military action appears designed to provide facilitation, cover, and legitimacy for an American-backed political transition within Iran. Such a transition would likely require pre-positioned actors. One figure frequently mentioned in this context is former IRGC head Ali Larijani, alleged to have been positioned by Khaneini as a key decision-maker and aligned with American interests.
Regarding Iran’s military response, it has been characterized as largely symbolic. Many targeted U.S. bases in the Gulf had reportedly been evacuated in advance, and the missiles launched against Israel appeared rudimentary. This was also the case when Israel and America struck Iran's nuclear facilities last July. As the Financial Times observed;
"When the US struck Iran in June last year, Tehran’s response was swift, but was choreographed with Washington to avoid escalation which Trump thanked them for. Air defences shot down Iranian missiles aimed at Al Udeid, which had been emptied." (28/2/26)
This account suggests that the strikes may have been calibrated to avoid full-scale escalation. From this perspective, the military exchanges could be interpreted as managed confrontation rather than uncontrolled conflict.
It is also notable that Britain did not participate in the military action and reportedly refused to allow the United States to use its bases in the UK or at Diego Garcia. Meanwhile, Britain is said to have positioned Reza Pahlavi, son of the former Shah of Iran and currently residing in Washington, as a symbolic opposition figure. However, Washington and Trump have given him little visible credibility.
In summary, with a fragmented and leaderless opposition and negotiations reportedly aligned with American strategic interests, the military strikes can be interpreted as an effort to protect the outcome of the talks through engineering a political transition in Iran — most probably through the military, one that would maintain and restructure American influence and control.
No comments:
Post a Comment