Tag: middle-east

Trying to understand the rising war in Iran 

3.3.26

Dear Partners in Thought,

While the news of the strikes on Iran is still very fresh with many ongoing developments by the day, it is useful to think about a few key issues behind them. 

The massive US and Israeli strikes in Iran were not expected at a time when negotiations, however challenging, were underway between the US and Iran in Geneva but appear to be in line with Trump’s unpredictable way of conducting international affairs. While very few will regret the unexpected passing of the Supreme Leader and many of his leadership (another amazing Venezuela-like result) many will not see how regime change, the noble excuse for the strikes, will take place without “boots on the ground” and a replication of the post-9-11 Iraq and Afghanistan wars that led to massive losses for US and allied troops and much upheaval in American politics and society. 

Why did Trump decide to go for these strikes? One could think that Netanyahu and his extremist team may have been behind convincing Trump, also as many moderate Israeli opposition figures were not opposed to them, giving an impression of sensible rationality to such a drastic project. The main war message was to create peace – through serious war – even if Trump has clearly wanted to be known to end wars to get the Nobel Prize for Peace. There might be some other reasons, which should surface in the coming weeks, like getting the American people’s focus away from the Epstein story and the likely closer association of the President with the man so many high-profile Americans and foreigners became too close to. 

It looks like the Iran war, also started without US Congressional review, will keep going for some time as Trump will do whatever it takes “to win in four to five weeks or even longer” – as he will also “not be bored”. Such a potentially endless war will naturally upset Trump’s MAGA base, many of its members having backed Trump as he was a clear isolationist and certainly not warmongering, this for a decade. The Middle East will become a region of intense war as seen with Iranian strikes on energy production facilities and US bases in many neighbouring countries like the increasingly key Gulf States, Saudi Arabia (also targeting the US embassy), Jordan, Iraq, or Qatar. Hezbollah has also started to use its diminished capabilities to strike Israel in a suicidal existential attempt. The price of oil will likely keep rising while the Strait of Hormuz, where 20% of oil trade has passed for decades, is no longer secure. 

While memories of Iraq and Afghanistan are still vivid for many Americans, Trump has started to mention the possible sending of troops on the ground, some military experts mentioning a potential despatch of 500,000 soldiers to ensure regime change. “Boots on the ground” are naturally the only way to ensure the possibility for regime change, which missile strikes would never deliver, even if seriously weakening the regime. 

In some way, the once peaceful Trump is re-introducing the means of war to achieve foreign political gains in the same way Putin did with Ukraine in an ill-fated way for now four years. One would also wonder if Putin may not be the real winner of the war starting with Iran due to its deflecting factor. It will also be interesting to see how Russia, a great user of Iranian drones, and especially a more careful China, will deal with Iran going forward.     

Iran will prepare itself or a long war so they can withstand attacks from a superpower like the US, which may not be forever but will not be easy to manage. In the meantime, the US, Israel and the world should get ready to face numerous non-conventional terrorist attacks as an easier way of retaliations against Trump’s move. And as time flies, the American support for Trump regarding Iran that is roughly at 40% (75% + among Republicans today) will dwindle as is always the case with such unpopular acts of wars, especially with no really critical US strategic rationale behind them apart from challenging nuclear discussions (Trump having terminated the Obama-engineered international agreement in his first term) and then today officially and “nobly” wanting to “create peace”. Rising oil prices will be felt at the pump as tariffs were and still are at the grocery store. Finally, the impact of such a war will likely and seriously increase the Republican downfall at the mid-terms in November, even if the GOP and its officials unsurprisingly still appear “formally” supportive of their leader today. It is hard to believe that such wars start in our times as we all know what they bring – including Trump and his team – but short-term priorities often blind leaders and their teams, especially when they are also known to be largely incompetent and supporting the leader at all costs. 

The three key words today are clearly “What comes next?” Only time will tell. As for Trump, one my very close friends reflecting on this new Iranian development was suggesting the concept of “Trumpmentia”, meaning a person with serious malignant and narcissistic tendencies combined with advanced senile dementia leading to poor political leadership and decision-making, so not fit for public office. Keeping a good sense of humour, even if this concept may ring a bell, is a key requirement in our new geopolitical times.    

Warmest regards,

Serge                 

The multiple conundrum of the Israeli-Iranian conflict 

20/6/25

Dear Partners in Thought,

While not being an expert on Middle Eastern affairs and having stayed gradually away from the atrocities seen in Gaza as not being able to cope, I was asked to give my take on the current descent to hell between Israel and Iran. To do so, I chose to give a take on one hand from a European observer and, on the other, to cover the multiple issues facing Trump 2.0 and its core MAGA base, top officials and influencers. The best word to describe this dual and inter-connected topic is conundrum to remain polite and civilised in our new times.

Having grown up remembering the Shah and his wife Farah (I looked like their son when in my early twenties) and not being so aware of Iranian politics, I thought they presented rather well on their official pictures. But not all was going very well in the Pahlavi Kingdom and we had in the Paris suburbs the leader of the opposition, a cleric named Khomeini, whom President Giscard had allowed to stay while not waging an outright war against his regime. Then the Shah fell, and Khomeini became the Supreme Leader in 1979 – 46 years ago. It is clear that the then-new Iran was not always liked in the region, leading to a war with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein in the early 1980s, while the new theocratic regime became very hard on its own people, especially women who ended up with no rights. Demonstrations, when suppressed, led to numerous executions in a trend that lasted until today. It is clear that Iran became an international pariah that a few enemies of the west like North Korea and now Russia stayed close to but with some distance (while other powers like China needed oil). Looking at a war with Israel, no European country supports Iran today while many are worried about its rising nuclear capabilities given their clear military focus. Regime change would certainly be welcome (also by the Iranian people) but the way to reach it appears too dangerous for all parties and potentially leading to a messy regional destabilisation including in the thriving part of the Gulf. 

Israel is the child of the Holocaust, even if that region was populated by Jews since the early 20th century. Europeans naturally supported Israel in all of its conflicts since the Six Day war, as it was part of the western camp in an often-hostile region, but also as there was a feeling of moral obligation and at times, for some, Holocaust-based guilt. German premier Merz clearly and, for many, unsurprisingly supported Israel’s attacks on Iran in the strongest way, also given the goal of avoiding potential nuclear annihilation. There was no question for Europeans and the west at large that Israel was always the “good guy” in the region. The horrible October 2023 Hamas attack created universal western uproar, justifying a strong response that I also felt was justified. However, the situation degraded quickly, not making the Netanyahu government and leadership liked like Moshe Dayan was. It is clear that Iran created an unstable region by backing a dangerous Hamas that kept the Gaza people prisoners, while Lebanon was also seriously affected by an aggressive, if slightly more stable, Hezbollah (and then the Houthis of late in Yemen did not help). It is hard to understand rationally why Israel keeps destroying Gaza after nearly 21 months while depriving Gazans of basic and humanitarian-delivered food by killing so many people, including from aid organisations. It is sadly clear that Netanyahu is not keen on losing power and facing the courts on his multiple legal cases. The official mantra of stopping Tehran acquiring nuclear capabilities, even if rational, gets weaker as the crisis unfolds, even if one has to be impressed by the legendary skills of Mossad when eliminating the military elite of an enemy. It is also clear that Israel’s actions have lowered European support, that initially was strong, also leading from multiple condemnations from many key EU states. We are now faced with a conflict where Europeans do not know with whom to side, while developments involving a desperate Iranian regime could lead to very bad outcomes not seen since WW2, even with the Ukrainian return of history.  

While Europeans do not know where to stand and what to say on this conflict, Trump 2.0 keeps to its transactional ways. This time with very clear demands for an unconditional surrender of Iran that could only lead to a rebuke based on national pride, all the more as there was an ongoing US-Iranian treaty negotiation that Bibi rashly interrupted, having his own tactical reasons. Statements from Trump that the US “may or may not intervene” is of course textbook Trump 2.0 as during the back-and-forth tariff policies or the never-ending postponements of the TikTok ban. President Trump is leading the show but his MAGA elite officials, influencers and most of his base are not keen on foreign intervention as clearly – if not vociferously – stated by the likes of Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon. They all believe in “America First – and only”. The new “Lindbergh” JD Vance is not keen on this foreign adventure either while even the top national security and intelligence team is opposed to it. Tulsi Gabbard, the Putin-friendly National Head of Intelligence, who is not fond of her own intelligence teams, and Kristi Noem, the dog killer and loser of her Gucci bag and 3,000 dollars while visiting jail inmates, are also opposed to other “lost wars” (on a funny note, Gabbard called the Iranian Supreme Leader “Khomeini” in a March statement to the House Intelligence Committee, stressing (if it were needed) the quality of the top US executive team). In true Trump fashion, Gabbard was not invited to a Camp David meeting dealing with Iran this month. It is also funny to see Marjorie Taylor Greene, the odd MAGA hat- and t-shirt wearing US House Representative, going against the man that helped make her as she opposes an old interventionist America. The only senior Republican proponents of intervention seem to be the older US Senators like Lindsey Graham or Mitch McConnell or a colourful Ted Cruz who stick to old GOP foreign policy principles but do not reflect the majority of Trump supporters, even beyond the core MAGA base. However, it seems that, even with a two-week diplomatic window to reach a deal, there will likely be a US intervention to go after the “Fordow bunker” where the Iranian uranium his enriched and hidden. It is interesting to see how an old conflict and indeed now key US political conundrum could derail Trump 2.0’s core MAGA leadership and base at a time of an already 38% national approval rating in five months, even if three and half years will be a long time, while the mid-terms should hopefully bring the world some needed joy and America some hope. 

Warmest regards,

Serge