Haidar Sahili Isfahani
These days, discussions revolve around a possible American declaration of war against Iran. Many analysts consider such a war inevitable, yet its timing remains dependent on numerous “ifs and buts”—conditions tied to time, geography, and capability. The real question, however, is this: what are the actual goals and objectives behind such a conflict, and what obstacles stand in the way of a war that, despite Donald Trump’s eagerness for confrontation, presents challenges so immense and intimidating that they have driven the U.S. president into deep contemplation?
Subject: The Trump Team’s Eagerness for War with Iran
From the early days of his first term—particularly after the first year—Donald Trump, upon tearing up the previous agreement between Iran and the United States, the JCPOA (signed in 2015), presented a list drafted by the Israeli prime minister. For Iranians, this list evokes memories of one of the most humiliating treaties in their history with Russia, signed on February 21, 1828 (1 Esfand 1206 AH), known as the Treaty of Turkmanchay.
In this proposed agreement—clearly reflecting Israel’s demands—Iran must, on the one hand, abandon all nuclear enrichment and ultimately relinquish any peaceful nuclear activity, or accept conditions that would inevitably lead to such an outcome. On the other hand, Iran must dismantle any missile capability beyond what Israel deems acceptable (limited to very short‑range missiles), effectively leaving the country defenseless against any future aggression.
The third demand, articulated by the Trump administration, is for Iran to sever ties with any anti‑Israeli liberation movement—groups referred to by Israel and the United States as “Iran’s proxy terrorist organizations.”
Looking at these demands, the post‑agreement scenario becomes easy to imagine: an agreement today, and tomorrow an invasion aimed at occupying or destabilizing Iran.
Naturally, given that the JCPOA was based on U.S. national interests, Iran saw no reason to accommodate Israel’s far broader demands. For this reason, the U.S. president tore up the previous deal, calling it “the worst deal in American history.”
Today, after years of threats, he has once again placed the same ultimatum before Iran: Israel’s interests—or nothing. According to American media, Iran’s response was simply: “Then nothing.”
Meanwhile, negotiations are underway in Oman—talks in which no one places much hope, and which many view merely as a countdown to the moment war begins. Yet it is still too early to draw conclusions. These talks serve not only as a potential escape route for Iran, but also as a political outlet for Trump himself.
The Goal: The Necessity of Such a War
In outlining the issue, two categories must be distinguished. First are the disputes between Iran and the United States, which—according to Iran, many global analysts, and the American Democratic Party—were resolved in 2015 through the JCPOA, an agreement that best served the national interests of both countries.
The second category concerns the interests of Israel and the American Zionist lobby, which played a significant role in bringing Donald Trump and many members of Congress to power and now demand the fulfillment of their own specific objectives.
The aim of this second group is nothing less than the overthrow of the Islamic Republic and the installation of a regime fully aligned with Israel and obedient to its directives, even if it outwardly appears to follow American leadership.
This, then, is Donald Trump’s primary objective—whether achieved gradually through a humiliating agreement that weakens Iran over time, or immediately, without preface or conclusion.
A Possible Scenario for a U.S. War Against Iran
Donald Trump envisions a highly idealized scenario.
His aspirations resemble those of an ambitious young boy who befriends a wealthy girl, wins her heart, becomes the family’s son‑in‑law, and eventually takes over management of their factory. While such dreams may have a theoretical path, fully realizing them in practice is exceedingly difficult.
Let us imagine the scenario Trump has constructed in his mind regarding the outcome of an attack on Iran.
American warships launch massive bombardments across Iran. Following this, supporters of Reza Pahlavi—the former crown prince (removed through the 1979 referendum and the National Assembly’s approval)—along with supporters of the Mojahedin‑e Khalq Organization’s Rajavi faction, pour into the streets and seize key state institutions one after another. Wherever they encounter resistance, American, NATO, and Israeli warplanes eliminate it.
In this imagined scenario, a bloody and widespread coup unfolds, during which thousands are massacred, potentially igniting a large‑scale civil war—a war in which both the innocent and the guilty are consumed. And, of course, neither the Americans nor the Israelis would be troubled by this. For them, the disintegration of Iran alone would suffice.
The Consequences of a Hypothetical Victory
Now, have he and his allies considered the supposed “sweet” consequences of such a great victory? For example:
Inside Iran: After the establishment of a pro‑American regime under Israeli oversight, the Western alliance envisions several scenarios—one of which is the partition of Iran. The country would be divided into multiple regions, even if a weak central authority nominally remains in Tehran. The only element connecting these fragmented regions would be American military bases. In the planners’ imagination, one such installation would likely be a major naval base in Chabahar, envisioned as the largest American base in the entire region. Another would be a large base in North Khorasan, adjacent to the Commonwealth of Independent States, and yet another in northwestern Iran near the Aras River, overlooking the Caucasus.
Outside Iran: The mere collapse of Iran would place Russia in an extremely difficult position.
The United States would immediately bring Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia into a regional alliance—something akin to the pre‑1979 CENTO pact. From there, the push toward the heart of the Heartland (Central Asia up to China’s borders) would begin, a region that has already experienced forms of color revolution. Exerting influence over Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan would not be particularly difficult; attractive economic agreements alone could achieve this, even without military intervention.
Next would come Kyrgyzstan, which offers relatively favorable conditions, followed by efforts to expand influence in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan—the former being the easier entry point. Eventually, Kazakhstan would become a battleground for U.S.–Russia confrontation.
Are these merely fantasies of grandeur, or a deeply dangerous scenario that could drag the United States into a major geopolitical crisis? Let us imagine the consequences even if these ambitions were to materialize.
In such a situation—where a massive threat emerges against Russia from the south—what would become of Russia’s position on the Ukrainian front? Would the Russians not be compelled to make major concessions to the West in order to relieve pressure on that front?
Who would believe that Donald Trump, having risen to power with the support of the Zionist movement in the United States, would now be willing to hand over the cradle of that movement—Ukraine—to Putin on a silver platter? Some of the leaders of this movement travel to Ukraine annually to visit the graves of their religious figures, and some even make pilgrimages from Israel to these Ukrainian sites. Preserving Ukraine is undoubtedly one of their highest priorities.
For this reason, there is a perception that Trump’s apparent neglect of Ukraine is merely a tactic to confuse Russian strategists; otherwise, Ukraine is the central objective, and Greenland and similar issues are merely pretexts.
The Feasibility of This Scenario
This scenario is suitable for a science‑fiction film. The very fact that Donald Trump has entertained such a scenario shows that we are not dealing with a sophisticated team. It is unrealistic to expect better planning from a group of inexperienced politicians, and naturally, their bluster may intimidate only the superficial. If everything is supposedly ready, why does Donald Trump hesitate? Why has he not already launched an attack?
From the long introduction I have provided, it becomes clear that the potential gains for the United States—should it achieve victory—would dangerously destabilize the balance of the international system.
The first reaction came from Vladimir Jabbarov, First Deputy Chairman of the International Affairs Committee of the Russian Federation Council, who emphasized that a potential U.S. invasion of Iran or missile strikes on Iranian territory would be a direct path to World War III. Speaking to reporters on Monday, this prominent Russian official stated: “I sincerely hope the Americans will not resort to actions such as an attack on Iran or missile strikes, because this is a direct path to World War III.”
After reading the introduction I have laid out, his warning becomes clearer. He occupies a sensitive position and should not, under any circumstances, speak outside Moscow’s official governmental framework. The Russians have a habit of allowing lower‑ranking officials to voice their most serious messages—so that the government can claim both to have said them and not to have said them.
The arrival of China’s heavy aircraft in Tehran and the transfer of advanced defense systems and radars to establish a powerful air‑defense network can be interpreted in many ways. In the scenario I have outlined, imagine the position China would find itself in. Whatever that position may be, it would certainly be far removed from the long‑term goals and strategic ambitions Beijing envisions for itself.
Iran’s Counter‑Scenario
Now we turn to Iran’s understanding of the scenario at hand.
The first question is whether this is merely an Iranian projection, or whether we are witnessing the emergence of a major military alignment on the ground—an alignment that, even if not officially declared, casts a shadow over the NATO alliance. Certainly, if Iran were faced with the prospect of annihilation, it would make any concession necessary, including granting Russia and China military bases on its territory and along the northern shores of the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. Such bases would pose a significant challenge for the United States—perhaps even marking the end of its dominance over the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
According to Iran’s scenario, let us assume that the United States ultimately yields to the demands of Israel and its supporters in Washington and suddenly opens fire.
The most immediate response promised by Iran would be attacks on all American bases—nine in total across the region. Simultaneously, Iran would strike American warships and oil tankers. Even this limited picture of Iran’s retaliatory actions—without considering the involvement of Iran’s allied forces—constitutes a serious scenario.
If one of the massive Abraham Lincoln–class aircraft carriers were suddenly split in half before the eyes of the world and slowly sank into the Indian Ocean, what situation would Donald Trump face? He would undoubtedly confront two major problems: first, the inevitability of a full‑scale declaration of war, and second, a severe blow to his standing before Congress.
If, contrary to American expectations, Iran’s new air‑defense systems were to suddenly bring down attacking aircraft and create an extremely difficult situation, what would he do then? Would he enter a war with no clear exit—one that would likely consume all three remaining years of his presidency—while already burdened with a massive debt crisis? After all, Vietnam once appeared to be an easy target as well.
The most important point concerns an all‑out war:
None of the countries bordering Iran are willing to grant their territory to the United States. On the contrary, large paramilitary forces from these countries might even mobilize to defend Iran and wage what they would call “jihad against the infidels.”
Iran’s missile and drone capabilities would turn any attempt at an amphibious landing into a humanitarian catastrophe. Iran is vast and not easily traversed. Such a war would be long, grinding, and devastating—potentially even more destructive than the Vietnam War. Support from Russia, China, and North Korea would make the conflict even more severe.
The Consequences of a Hypothetical Iranian Victory
If, for whatever reason, Donald Trump is unable to lift the massive stone he has picked up and throw it at his intended target—and instead abandons the effort halfway—what would the consequences be? This is precisely the message that Sheikh Khalid, Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Defense, attempted to convey to Trump in secret negotiations, summarizing it in one sentence: “Iran will become extremely emboldened.”
But the issue is not merely Iran’s emboldenment from the perspective of this young Saudi official.
The first consequence would be a severe blow to America’s prestige. One could say it would mark the beginning of the decline of America’s superpower status.
The second major consequence would be the formation of an informal alliance—something akin to a new Warsaw Pact—positioned in opposition to NATO.
Trump and the Great Nightmare Called “Decision‑Making”
In 2015, the United States reached a highly valuable agreement grounded in its national interests; Iran’s nuclear weapons program was effectively relegated to the past, and a precise monitoring mechanism was established. At the same time, a robust framework for producing nuclear fuel was created—one capable of supplying the country’s nuclear energy needs—allowing American and Western companies to use Iran as a launchpad for extraordinary profits.
- Impressive and environmentally friendly nuclear power created a strong foundation for Western investment.
- The establishment of industrial centers near vast reserves of oil, gas, lithium, and copper would have added significant value to the American economy, helping alleviate its heavy debt burden.
- The sheer volume of investment and profit in Iran would have either rendered proxy forces irrelevant or entangled them so deeply in economic benefits that they would have been unlikely to pursue reckless adventures. Iranians were not foolish enough to abandon such substantial gains and embark on baseless conquests. Especially since the issue of supporting liberation movements was, in fact, a reaction to Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear agreement—and before that, pressure from affiliated companies to maintain sanctions on Iran despite the deal.
But who suffered from this arrangement?
Certainly Israel… because a progressive Iran, uninterested in close relations with Israel, would inevitably become a major obstacle to Israeli dominance in the region. A dynamic Iranian economy would have expanded its relations with neighboring countries, tightening the encirclement around Israel step by step, eventually forcing the regime to be held accountable for every killing it commits among Palestinians and Lebanese.
The next problem for the Trump–Netanyahu alliance is that, unlike in 2015, this partnership is now extremely isolated. Even European countries that pretend to offer support will not shoulder the burden. Their gestures are merely attempts to placate an unpredictable Trump, and entering another war with unforeseeable consequences is an intolerable burden for them.
At that time, some Arab countries were even willing to cooperate—perhaps even in a full‑scale war against Iran. The Abraham Accords were fashionable then, and many believed they would reshape the region. But today, after a series of bitter experiences—especially in Gaza—and with improved relations between Tehran and Arab capitals, the situation has completely changed. The Arab governments that once reacted angrily to the signing of the JCPOA are now proposing a similar agreement themselves.
The task has become extremely difficult for Trump, and Netanyahu’s trip to the White House to persuade him to launch an attack—especially after that frantic call to halt the 12‑day war with Iran, and another call to postpone the recent strike due to Israel’s lack of readiness—serves no purpose other than exposing him to a cold response from Trump.
Trump is preoccupied with many other concerns these days—even with the fate of himself and his family after his presidency ends. The forces currently restrained under Tehran’s command, if the Islamic Republic were to collapse, could one day become extremely vengeful and dangerous.
These days he asks himself: What is the value of another presidential term if I must pay such a heavy price for the support of the Israel lobby?
Of course, his other effort—to undermine Iran’s oil exports—may be worth this trade‑off with Netanyahu and his Zionist allies, but even that path is riddled with obstacles and uncertainties.
We will have to wait and see…