A West Asia Chessboard: The U.S.–Israel War Against Iran

Recipe for a Molotov Cocktail

Step 1: Violate international law and attack a country under the guise of protecting civilians and neutralising the threat of a nuclear weapon that has been 2 weeks away from completion for the past 30 years. 

The morning of February 28th, sirens blasted all over West Asia as the U.S. and Israel launched a series of coordinated attacks in Iran, including missiles striking a girls' primary school in Minab that killed 165 girls, most of whom were aged between 7 and 12. Iran then retaliated by launching air and missile strikes across the Gulf on American military bases in Bahrain (the U.S. Fifth Fleet), Qatar (Al Udeid Air Base), Saudi Arabia (Prince Sultan Air Base), Kuwait (Ali Al Salem Air Base, Camp Buehring, Camp Arifjan), and the United Arab Emirates (Al Dhafra). 

Framing intervention as liberation and escalation as prevention is not new in international politics. In several cases, including interventions in Venezuela and parts of West Asia, operations introduced as necessary security measures have evolved into prolonged political involvement and, at times, attempts at regime change. Appeals to imminent threat and civilian protection have frequently accompanied these interventions, often preceding extended geopolitical instability.

When war erupts, civilians are often caught in the crossfire of a conflict they never chose. In this case, what started off as the U.S.-Israel's war with Iran has now involved 13 countries across West Asia; Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cyprus, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, with civilians, infrastructure and national stability treated as collateral as a result of missile strikes and drone attacks that aren’t limited to American military bases any longer. Protests have begun to erupt in parts of these countries and others, with Pakistan recording at least 22 deaths as its U.S. Consulate was stormed following pro-Iranian demonstrations. 

"The Iranian aggression against the Gulf states was a miscalculation, and it isolated Iran at a critical juncture. Your war is not with your neighbours." - Anwar Gargash, Emirati Diplomatic Adviser to the UAE President

Under the UN Charter, states are prohibited from using unilateral force, with the exception of: (1) when authorised by the UN Security Council or (2) in self-defence. Prior to the strikes on February 28th, neither the U.S. nor Israel sought approval from the UN Security Council, leaving claims of self-defence as the sole legal rationale under international law – a rationale that is insufficient when considering the poorly supported claim that Iran is building a nuclear weapon and inflammatory statements by Iranian officials are not probative about Iran’s intent. In addition, many argue that Israel had the ‘right to defend itself’ as Iran’s nuclear attack on Israel was “imminent”. International law allows the use of force in anticipatory self-defence when an armed attack is underway; it does not permit preemptive or preventative strikes, confirming that attacking Iran was a violation of international law. 

Iran’s History with the United States

When oil was first struck in 1908, Iran quickly attracted the strategic interest of foreign countries. This led to the formation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which is today known as British Petroleum (BP). The AIOC and other British-controlled firms dominated extraction and profits for decades. This provoked growing Iranian demands for sovereignty over their own resources. In 1951, Mohammad Mosaddegh was democratically elected as the Prime Minister of Iran. He was widely popular due to his commitment to modernising Iran. His government implemented an ambitious program of social reform, including measures such as unemployment benefits and social welfare provisions. Land redistribution initiatives were also introduced, aimed at dismantling entrenched systems of landlord dominance and liberating peasants from exploitative labor arrangements under their landlords. Central to his political vision was the determination to curtail foreign interference and reassert Iranian sovereignty over domestic affairs. 

One of his biggest achievements was moving to nationalise the oil industry in Iran, against U.S. and British interests. Alongside the nationalisation, his administration shut down the British Embassy in Iran due to their intervention in Iranian affairs and in doing so, he terminated the British concession on Iranian oil. While the British Embassy was shut down, the American Embassy was still functional in Iran. In 1953, the CIA (U.S.) and MI6 (UK) orchestrated a coup that overthrew the Iranian democracy. Kermit Roosevelt Jr., the CIA’s top agent, met with Iranian operatives and paid to organise riots and protests in Tehran to create the appearance of widespread unrest – burning buildings, trashing homes, and destroying the city – due to Mossadegh's “lack of popularity”. As a consequence of such subterfuge, the pro-monarchy regiments of the military stormed the capital for Mossadegh’s arrest and he was removed and convicted of treason, following which the U.S. funded the subsequent monarchic government, the Shah. 

The Shah’s tenure was marked by economic expansion, significant urban transformation, and women’s suffrage in Iran, yet it was equally characterised by stringent political repression and dissent by the secret police (SAVAK). Through the 1960s, Iran became one of the U.S.’s key regional allies, shaping military, intelligence, and oil policy. The Pahlavi dynasty became the last royal family before the Revolution in 1979 brought the monarchy to an end. The revolution was not initially purely religious – the growing anti-American sentiment united secular reformers, leftists, centrists, and clerics in opposition to the Shah’s rule, the result of which was the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This was not a result that numerous Iranians expected or wanted; many left Iran or were either imprisoned or killed for rejecting it, and since 1979, Iran has been governed under a clerical leadership. After 37 years as a centralised power, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, alongside other senior officials, was killed on February 28th in an Israeli-U.S. strike. His leadership resulted in the execution of thousands of political prisoners, the violent suppression of protestors that led to death, economic hardship, brutal killings of tens of thousands of Iranians, and the subjugation and intensified repression of women. 

Why is it essential to examine the U.S.’s historical interest in Iranian oil when analysing its relationship with Iran? One of the factors in the instigation of the U.S.-Israel's war against Iran was the claim that Iran was on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon. Oman’s Foreign Minister stated in an interview the day leading up to the strikes that Iran agreed to ‘zero stockpiling’ which is ‘very, very important because if you cannot stockpile material that is enriched…[you cannot] create a bomb.’. Additionally, he stated that there would be ‘full and comprehensive verification by the [International Atomic Energy Agency]’ and that Iran would degrade its ‘current stockpiles of nuclear material to the lowest level possible so that it is converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible.’ 

An understanding of the present requires a careful consideration of the historical trajectory that led us here, because if history has taught us anything, it's that the aim is control over Iran’s vast oil resources. 

The Role of Oil

Against this backdrop, Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz raises an urgent question: what are the global consequences of this? The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most critical shipping route, controlling the travel of around 20% of the world’s oil and natural gas (LNG). While Iran and Oman control the strait geographically, international law prohibits its closure. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 38(1), ships and aircraft travelling through the Strait have the ‘right of transit passage’. The S&P Global Commodity Insights highlights that tanker traffic dropped by 40-50% within hours of the closure, as vessels rushed to exit. With most Gulf oil exports being cut off immediately, LNG shipments from Qatar – the world’s largest exporter – have been severely disrupted as QatarEnergy halted production following drone attacks on the plant, triggering the conditions for a global energy crisis. This inevitably led to European gas prices spiking up to 50% and could consequently trigger a fresh wave of global inflation and push up the costs of transportation and consumer goods.  The issue is not simply that the closure threatens global energy trade. Iran’s threat to torch ships that attempt to pass through the Strait drives up shipping insurance, triggers panic in energy markets, and pushes up gas prices – which then cascade into higher transport costs, food prices, and broader inflation. This is the economic leverage that Iran holds against the U.S. and Israel. 

With Iran closing Hormuz and the potential threat of Bab el-Mandeb closing down, a strait controlled by Iran-backed Houthis, Israel’s Gulf oil supply is in a chokehold, so what now? Shipping has halted and tankers have rerouted, which means that distant reserves have become vital – such as Venezuela's. 

Venezuela has the largest oil reserves on Earth outside the Persian Gulf; these reserves are accessible to Israel via Atlantic routes that do not involve the Strait of Hormuz. In a long-term Gulf conflict, Venezuelan crude becomes a backup supply and hence, a strategic leverage that allows less dependence on West Asia chokepoints. The capture of Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces was not about liberating Venezuelans. The missiles striking Iran are not about liberating Iranians. At its core, these conflicts are tied to the U.S. and Israel’s strategic hegemony over oil in West Asia. 

Is a regime change possible?

U.S. intervention in West Asian countries is a story we have seen time and time again. The U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 over claims that it was developing weapons of mass destruction. The reason why they believed so was that Benjamin Netanyahu told American intelligence in 2002 that Iraq was developing both chemical and biological nuclear weapons. Sounds familiar? The Israeli intelligence reportedly increased its estimate of Iraq’s stockpile of weapons of mass destruction as the U.S. got closer to invading them. Ultimately, after invading Iraq in 2003, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found. Sounds familiar? The war continued for 9 years as George W. Bush’s administration cited the focus on security threats as a reason for the invasion. The U.S. wanted regime change in Iraq. Sounds familiar? The Iraqi War left the country in a worse position post-war than it was before, which led to prolonged instability. 

Imperial “liberation” is often synonymous with collapse and destruction. Historically, whenever there has been U.S. intervention in an Arab State following the removal of a dictatorship, it has resulted in civilians being attacked and the destabilisation of the country. 

These interventions by the U.S. provide insight into its underlying strategic motives; however, a collapse of the Islamic regime in Iran cannot be equated to the regime collapse in Arab States such as Iraq, Libya, and Syria, as their structural differences are distinct. These were inherently personalist dictatorships whose dismantling created a security vacuum and was followed by a state collapse. Iran is not built around one individual, but is rather an ideological theocracy that is layered and institutional in a way that is embedded throughout the country; the Islamic Republic is built around the inevitability of war with the West. Power flows through a web of institutions that isn’t limited to the Supreme Leader: the Guardian Council, which consists of the ideological gatekeepers, the Assembly of Experts, which are the clerics who choose the succeeding leader, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), who are the apparatus for internal repression, and the Basij, who are the paramilitary force. Weakening a coercive organ is not the same as dissolving a nation. Additionally, it is imperative to acknowledge the state-controlled economic conglomerates, i.e. the IRGC’s business empire. According to Fortune, they control the country’s core industrial sectors such as ‘construction, oil, transportation, banking, agriculture, medicine, and real estate’, highlighting how deeply the regime is interwoven within the fabric of society. 

In a revolution, the watershed moment is when the military defects, but how can one defect if their financial future relies on the regime’s survival? 

Image by Tawseef Ahmad, from Pexels

Two truths can hold at once. 

Iran is run by a theocratic leader of an oppressive regime that led to the subjugation and death of non-compliant Iranians, especially women. 

The United States and Israel illegally attacked Iran, violating international law. Historically, U.S. interventions in Arab States have not resulted in the liberation of any nation. 

The inability to hold two truths at the same time is what imperial power structures rely on. It’s what instigates binary thinking that leads to false choices, with oppressed peoples pit against one another. What we are witnessing is not unprecedented chaos – it is an amalgamation of years of colonialism, proxy wars, and coups. The Iranians deserve self-determination, but without covert destabilisation and imperial entities shaping the trajectory of the region.