A war of choice, or a history repeat, or an experience failed experiment? President Trump, a self-proclaimed deal-maker cum negotiator, did his past experience fail him? Trump has a team of hawks who have long viewed the Middle East through the crosshairs. Look at figures like Marco Rubio, his tapped Secretary of State, who has historically championed crushing sanctions and regime change rhetoric against Tehran. Steve Witkoff, a real estate tycoon and a long-time personal friend of President Trump, who has become a central "dealmaker" in the administration's foreign policy. Appointed as the U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East shortly after the 2024 election, Witkoff has tried to leverage his business background to broker high-stakes international agreements. But the Middle East is not a Manhattan real estate negotiation; leverage here is measured in ballistic missiles and proxy militias, not escrow and zoning laws.
Or look back to the foundational influences of architects of the "America First" yet aggressively anti-Iran "maximum pressure" campaigns. They are deeply entrenched in the legacy of past Middle Eastern interventions. They operate on a flawed doctrine where overwhelming pressure and economic strangulation are supposed to force a favourable deal. But in the Middle East, immense pressure doesn't breed compliance; it breeds explosive resistance.
Now, back to history, a war due for 40 years? A democratically selected leader torn away by a monarch supported by the West. And what after that? A rule of American "freedom" and the return of American karma, and biting them hard. An Islamic revolution and Khamenei’s Iran, the rest is history. Let’s look at the facts. In 1953, the CIA and Britain's MI6 orchestrated Operation Ajax, overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, simply because he dared to nationalize Iran's oil industry. The West installed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, an autocratic monarch who ruled with an iron fist, backed by a brutal secret police force (SAVAK) funded by Washington. This wasn't about spreading democratic freedom; it was about securing crude oil and Western geopolitical dominance. The blowback was catastrophic. Decades of suppressed fury boiled over in 1979. The Shah was ousted, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini took power, and the US Embassy hostage crisis shattered Washington’s illusion of control. The very anti-Western theocracy the US faces today was forged in the fires of its own 1953 intervention.
What of Israel, and how are they in the picture? Always a watchdog of Iran in the Middle East on behalf of the US. Israel operates as the ultimate frontline proxy and intelligence fortress for Western interests in a hostile region, while simultaneously fighting for its own existential survival. Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has branded Israel the "Little Satan" and funded a ring of fire, the "Axis of Resistance," including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen. For the US, Israel is the unsinkable aircraft carrier, a high-tech watchdog heavily subsidized by American military aid to check Iranian expansionism. When Iran advances its nuclear centrifuges or ships precision-guided munitions through Syria, it is Israel that carries out the shadow war, assassinating nuclear scientists and bombing supply lines. It's a symbiotic, high-stakes alliance where Israel does the heavy kinetic lifting to keep Tehran cornered, protecting broader US hegemonial interests in the process.
Now, here we come, the 1979 Islamic revolution, and Iran was ruled by Ali Khamenei as the Supreme Leader starting from 1989, after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s death. Since those pivotal years, the Middle East has been locked in a cold war. The US, terrified of losing its grip on the world’s energy jugular, doubled down on its alliances with Sunni Gulf monarchies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Washington built massive military footprints: the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Then came the ultimate strategic blunder, the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. By taking out Saddam Hussein, America inadvertently handed Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. Tehran swiftly filled the power vacuum, embedding its Shia militias deep into the Iraqi state architecture. Today, the US finds itself spending billions to maintain bases in a region where Iranian influence stretches seamlessly from Tehran, through Baghdad and Damascus, straight to the shores of the Mediterranean in Beirut.
Fast forward to the current scenario. The geopolitical chessboard is rigged with tripwires. Iran is enriching uranium closer to weapons-grade (60% and beyond, as claimed by agencies) than ever before, using the ashes of the abandoned 2015 nuclear deal as fertilizer for its ambitions. Simultaneously, Tehran holds the sword of Damocles over the global macroeconomy: the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which roughly 20% of the world's oil flows. The prevailing hawkish logic in Washington is a dangerous gamble: “Someday Iran might attack, so I’ll attack first, bomb their facilities, and force a ‘good deal’ out of the wreckage.” But this strategy inherently backfires.
History shows that cornering Iran only accelerates their aggression. A preemptive strike wouldn't be a surgical success; it would ignite a regional inferno. It would close the Gulf, spike global inflation, crash financial markets, and drag US forces into an unwinnable quagmire. This wouldn't be a war of necessity to save the world. It would be a "War of Choice"; the devastating climax of a conflict that has been brewing, largely due to Western policy failures, for over 40 years.
So, shall we conclude as a War of Choice where maximum pressure breeds resistance? But what next? War analysts, diplomats, and political strategists are scratching their heads. Are they clueless, or simply flooded with hypotheses, waiting for the smoke to clear to prove their theories right? The current trajectory threatens to set an unprecedented, disastrous history. The ultimate question remains: will President Trump, the self-proclaimed master negotiator, be able to pull the plug on his administration's hawkish playbook before it's too late? Or will the US stumble blindly into another catastrophic quagmire, confusing real estate tactics with grand strategy? The clock is ticking, and time will answer.
- Rupjyoti
Follow us: lnktr.ee/ImRupjyoti