Iran and the US have been on a collision course since 1979 when the radical Islamic state was founded and 44 US diplomats were taken hostage.
But why now? But also, what are the who’s, what’s, how’s, when’s and where’s of the current car crash and its regional, national and global repercussions.
Who first—the US and Israel. America did not call on its traditional NATO allies. It did not go to the United Nations to seek legal sanctions. The United States did not even bother to inform the G7 countries. The United States acted unilaterally. In fact, Donald Trump acted unilaterally within the US government machine because he did not bother to consult members of Congress let alone seek congressional approval.
The only country that America allied itself with was Israel. It should be noted that this was the first time (other than the air attack in June) that US and Israeli troops have fought together. In the first and second Gulf Wars the US refused Israeli help and there was no Israeli participation in Afghanistan.
There was a very good reason for this. Arab governments may be prepared to accept Israel, but most of their populations remain implacably opposed to the existence of the state of the Jewish state. When Israeli and US forces fight side by side it alienates America from Arab public opinion and shakes the thrones of the Arab monarchies. Iran is unpopular with Arabs, but Israel is reprehensible.
The why and when are linked. Iran is the weakest it has been since the Islamic revolutionary government came to power 47 years ago. Years of sanctions have significantly weakened the economy. Economic hardship coupled with political repression has created waves of riots. Only weeks ago Iranian government shot tens of thousands of protesters demanding an end to the theocratic regime. And finally, the Iranian military has been weakened by the Gaza War and Operation Midnight Hammer which damaged—but clearly did not “obliterate” – Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities.
The question of where would appear obvious: The skies over Iran and Lebanon where Iran’s proxy Hezbollah army is based. But not so obvious is the wider Gulf region as well. Iran is responding to attacks on its forces by widening the war to include the entire Middle East. Missiles and drones have been falling Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar and even Azerbaijan. The targets are mainly economic infrastructure because one of Iran’s main war aims is to create economic chaos throughout the region because the security of the west depends on economic stability in the oil-rich Gulf region.
The how is air strikes — for now at least. It started with precision bombing with the aim of taking out the political leadership and Iranian defenses. That appears to have been successful. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini is dead as are several political leadership layers beneath him. Analysts believe the Iranians have used 90 percent of their missile arsenal and their air force and navy are crushed.
The US and Israel now have command of the skies. They no longer need to rely solely on their Stealth bombers with precision targeting. The skies of Iran are now filled with B-52 Stratfortress bombers dropping 2,000-pound bombs. And because they are gravity bombs there is less control of where they land. As America’s gung-ho Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, said: “Our forces will be raining down death and destruction all day long.” He added that they would be following no rules of engagement. No Geneva conventions. No “pussy footing around.”
But what follows Hegseth’s “death and destruction?” When will the war end? The two questions are inextricably linked and so far, the Trump Administration has demonstrably failed to give clear answers to these key questions. Trump would like to see the Iranian people rise up and destroy any remnants of the regime and its revolutionary guard that remain. That may happen, but if it does it will make it more difficult for the American president to achieve his stated aim of choosing the next Iranian leader.
And if the people do rebel the outcome of such a rebellion is highly uncertain. There are ten major ethnic groups in Iran and at least four of them—the Kurds, Balochs, Turkmens and Ahvazi Arabs—have nationalist aspirations. A bombing campaign that destroys Iran’s security apparatus and economic infrastructure could fracture this multi-ethnic country and lead to a civil war.
America might be able to prevent a civil war by sending in troops as it did in Iraq. Hegseth appears to be in favour of boots on the ground. At least, he has refused to rule out that option. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, appears to be vehemently against dispatching ground troops. Once you march the boots in, he argues, it is difficult to march them out.
One thing is clear: There is no certain answer as to when or how the Iran war will end. Trump started his war with no clear exit strategy.
* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A medieval street at the heart of Swansea's social life
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
More missing scientists: Remembering the GEC-Marconi deaths panic of the late Eighties
Makerfield: we can breathe again.
John Bicknell
expats
Andrew Tampion
David Le Grice
nigel hunter
9 Comments
Tom, spot on.
Iran have seen the US as the ‘Big Satan’ and Britain the ‘Little Satan’ since 1953 when Mohammad Mossadegh was ousted in ‘Operation Ajax’ to stop UK oil being nationalised. See my play in https://www.freedombooksandplays.com/ajax.html
Iran is a proud country with nearly 3,000 years of history. The Iran-Iraq war, started by Iraq in 1980 lasted 8 years. Did Trump know when he started the Israeli-Iran war?
An intelligence report conducted by the US National Intelligence Council found that even a “large-scale” American-led assault on Iran was unlikely to topple the country’s government, according to The Washington Post.
The findings raise doubts about the Trump administration’s claim that the war can be concluded within four to six weeks, the Post said, citing three unnamed sources familiar with the contents of the intelligence assessment.
According to the Post, the report was completed just a week after the US and Israel launched a joint strike on Iran on February 28, killing Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on the first day of the operation.
It also said the report described the prospect of Iran’s fragmented opposition taking control of the country as “unlikely”.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/3/8/iran-live-israel-bombs-tehran-oil-depots-attacks-on-gulf-states-continue?update=4376589
We’ve seen this before – once you’ve decided on a bombing campaign, you keep on bombing. And while you might start with high-value military and political targets, once you run out of them you start on the medium-value civilian infrastructure targets. And when that doesn’t work, you bomb anything, because it’s a bombing campaign and you can’t stop bombing if you haven’t “won”.
Make no mistake, US heavy bombers are going to take off from British bases and kill Iranian civilians, and we have no way of policing the US choice of target.
If I can make a minor correction: @John: I believe it was Ruhollah Khomeini who, before he became leader of Iran after the 1979 revolution, coined the terms, ‘Great Satan’ for the USA, and ‘Little Satan’ for Israel (not the UK). He also referred to the USSR as the ‘Lesser Satan’. Until 1979, Iran had a pro-Western Government, so it’s not plausible to claim that Iran viewed the USA as the Great Satan prior to that date.
Totally agree with @Tom that Trump has no sensible exit strategy for the war. It seems unlikely that aerial bombing alone can cause the Iranian regime to be replaced with anything better, so what on Earth is Trump going to do if/when it becomes apparent that the bombing has destroyed Iran’s infrastructure but still not achieved its objective?
I fear Nick is right. I truly believe now is the time to simply say no to Trump. He is clearly on any objective assessment the greatest threat to what we consider “civilisation”. His values are not ours, and increasingly I wonder (especially when we hear talk in their military of a desire for Armageddon) if there is even a majority of the US population that share our values. And despite the frightening recent National Security report on the risks of climate and nature breakdown, there is very little talk (for example at the Munich conference) about the damage Trump is doing to our environment. He is a monster, and the UK should have the cojones to follow Spain’s example.
I can’t help feeling that President Trump is following the normal route followed by dictators. When they have problems at home, they divert the public’s attention by starting a war that they can “win”.
President Trump has problems with the Epstein revelations; what better than to start a war that he feels he can “win”?
The major problem is that he’s not going to achieve regime change by air power alone.
Viet Nam mark 2?
Trump has been led by Netanyahu into yet another Israeli genocide… I believe that, even after the US stop bombing, the IDF will continue sporadic attacks on a weakened Iran for the foreseeable future..
See my contribution on what the majority of Iranians think about the war:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/the-cry-of-a-britishiranian-lib-dem-woman-79277.html
In response to your point about the ‘ten major ethnic groups in Iran,’ Reza Pahlavi recently met with representatives of the Iranian Folk Congress who stood united together for the freedom of their country. You can see the post here: https://x.com/PahlaviComms/status/2031395675544359149
or here:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVtRtN0kYjB/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
The Iran conflict is a good example of where contrasting ideologies lead to conflict because both sides have such different belief systems, democratic processes and expectations. The trust needed for any negotiation to succeed has been broken down over decades. The threat of actions such as military intervention becomes a tool in the negotiating process rather than something that both sides understand should be taken off the table.