The US has lost multiple wars at the hands of supposedly weaker countries. Israel is in decay mode with a deepening economic crisis, and a rapidly slithering population
THE conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran as of early 2026 is characterised by a “decapitation” strategy and intense, direct military strikes. In this illegal war, the stated objectives by US and Israeli leadership, such as destroying Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, preventing regional instability, and fostering regime change, are heavily contested, with critics describing the campaign as an illegal, non-defensive war of aggression.
The strategy, by itself, is viewed as, “fundamentally flawed,” and dishonest and based on, a “war of choice,” rather than necessity,” by many experts. The conflict is in an, “ongoing,” state of escalation, with both sides, “pursuing multiple objectives,” including a, “4-week timetable,” for the war.
The conflict follows 45 years of “anti-American stance,” and “proxy-based hostilities,” and is fuelled by “maximum pressure” campaigns. The critics of the conflict who deem that the US and Israel have acted illegally and against international law are multiplying in numbers. Many analysts and the UN General Assembly have characterised the unilateral attacks as a violation of the UN Charter, specifically regarding state sovereignty, with critics calling it a “crime of aggression”.
As of July 2025, 28 countries, including the UK, Japan, and several European nations, had officially called for an immediate end to the war in Gaza, marking increased international pressure on Israel. Earlier in June 2025, a UN General Assembly resolution demanding a permanent ceasefire was supported by 149 countries.
Following the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a joint US-Israel strike, the intent of “Regime Change & “Decapitation” stands doomed. The primary goal appears to be the total dismantling of the Islamic republic’s power structure rather than just a, “non-proliferation” exercise. Israel and the US have argued that Iran’s nuclear programme, particularly its alleged new, underground, and, “impossible to attack,” sites, made an immediate, “pre-emptive,” war necessary.
As of Tuesday (March 3), 2026, the six nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain) have been directly targeted by Iranian retaliatory strikes, with many calling for an immediate halt to the conflict. These are countries that host US Army bases. Additionally, Germany and other European nations have sought to de-escalate. Germany, along with the UK and France, has called for a negotiated settlement, with it explicitly ruling out active participation in military action against Tehran. Spain joined in calling for an immediate de-escalation of the conflict.
The strikes on Iran have resulted in significant civilian casualties, including reports of a girls’ elementary school in Minab being destroyed, with an estimated 120 innocent girls dead. The conflict has rapidly spread, causing the “closure of the Strait of Hormuz,” and retaliatory strikes on US allies in the region, creating huge regional instability. On the other hand, Iran has confined itself to US military bases and key locations in Israel.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched retaliatory missile and drone strikes against multiple US military facilities across the Middle East. The IRGC claimed to have targeted 14 US military bases in the region. Al Udeid Air Base (Qatar), the forward headquarters for US Central Command (CENTCOM) was targeted. So too, the Erbil Air Base (Iraq), located in the Kurdish region, was hit by multiple missiles and drone strikes. The Al Dhafra Air Base (UAE), which hosts US personnel, was targeted, with explosions reported in the vicinity.
Reports indicate Iranian missiles were also fired at Muwaffaq Al-Salti Air Base, Jordan. The US base Ain Al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq was targeted, with reports of explosions in the area. Jebel Ali Port (UAE), a large structure in a US Navy recreational area within the port was hit.
In Camp Buehring (Kuwait), a drone was reported to have detonated within the perimeter of this base. The attacks, dubbed “Operation Truthful Promise 4” by Iran, were in response to US and Israeli strikes that targeted Iranian nuclear sites and military facilities. While the IRGC claimed that hundreds of American troops were killed in the strikes, US officials have not confirmed these high figures, with some reports noting that three service members were killed at Camp Arifjan, while other sources indicated lower casualties, and some locations suffered no casualties at all. The strikes mark a significant escalation compared to previous, lower-level attacks by Iran-backed groups in 2023-2024.
Jeffrey Sachs, writing in Common Dreams, offered the lame pretext that the joint US-Israeli attacks were necessary because Iran “rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can’t take it anymore.” Sachs terms it as a “flat lie”. Sachs reminds us that Iran agreed a decade ago to a nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), that was adopted by the UN Security Council in Resolution 2231. It was Donald Trump who tore up the agreement in 2018.
Last June 2025, Israel bombed Iran in the midst of US-Iran negotiations. This time too, the Israel-US war plans were set weeks ago when Benjamin Netanyahu met with Trump, and the negotiations underway between the US and Iran were a charade. This seems to be the new modus operandi of the US: start negotiations and then aim to murder the counterparts. This entire US-Israel war is totally farcical.
At the UN Security Council, there are eight of the other 14 Council members that host US military bases or grant the US military access to local bases. CIA bases are located right within. These include Bahrain, Colombia, Denmark, France, Greece, Latvia, Panama, and the United Kingdom. The US military bases house CIA operations, and the host countries constantly look over their shoulder to try to avoid US subversion in their own countries. Countries that host US bases end up being mere vassal states and are forced to bow to US commands and wishes.
European nations are navigating a complex, fractured, and often reactive approach to the escalating conflict between the US/Israel and Iran, following intense military action. While some critics describe the European response as “mute” or “pathetic” in comparison to their focus on Ukraine, others indicate a strategy of “cautious engagement” or “supportive restraint,” where European powers aim to prevent wider war while condemning Iranian actions.
Denmark will soon have to confront the ‘Question of Greenland’ and the US’ intent to either buy it off, or simply take it away, according to its whims and fancies. The US will do what it pleases and the EU will come to the stadium to watch the takeover. European countries watch US and Israelis commit evil in Iran now, and earlier in Gaza, without even an iota of political ethics, making them contemptible in the face of the rest of the world.
Spain has been the only major European voice to explicitly condemn the US-led military strikes on Iran, calling them a “blatant violation of international law”. It refused to allow its military bases to be used for the operation, widening the divide within the EU. This author joins a mass of justice movements, individuals, progressive academics and social activists, peace movements, who view the EU as a non-entity in global matters. After being masters of the universe in the time of colonialism, today they lie in the rubble of political ethics – dismantled, dishevelled, politically unkempt, rumpled, and disarrayed.
According to the ‘Iran Premier’, China provides tangible, though mostly indirect or “dual-use” military support to Iran, focusing on enhancing Iran’s defensive capabilities and technological infrastructure rather than direct combat intervention. China has been identified as a supplier of materials for Iran’s ballistic missile production, including components for solid-fuel propellants and guidance systems. Following the 2025 Iran-Israel conflict, reports indicated Iran ordered materials from China to rebuild its missile capabilities. China has supplied HQ-9B surface-to-air missile batteries to Iran to help rebuild its air defence capabilities, particularly after damage from strikes in 2024 and 2025.
Russia has significantly strengthened its military partnership with Iran, shifting from a transactional relationship to a more strategic, albeit conditional, alliance aimed at undermining US influence, especially amid intensifying conflicts in the Middle East. While both nations are heavily sanctioned by the West, this cooperation is marked by advanced weapons transfers, intelligence sharing, and, in some cases, tacit or direct support for Iranian actions. Russia provides crucial, advanced military and technical support to Iran to help it withstand Western pressure and act as a regional counterweight to the US, but this support is carefully calibrated to prevent Russia from being drawn into a direct, large-scale war.
India is navigating a delicate diplomatic tightrope, balancing its strategic, defence-focused partnership with Israel and the US against vital, long-standing interests with Iran. Amidst escalating Middle East conflicts and US-led pressure on Tehran, New Delhi seeks to protect its energy security, the Chabahar Port project, and its diaspora, while maintaining strategic autonomy. The Chabahar Port project in Iran’s Sistan-Balochistan province is a strategic, deepwater port that provides a crucial trade route to Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan. It is the cornerstone of India’s maritime strategy, aimed at strengthening trade links and reducing dependency on traditional land routes. Count India out for an authentic mediatory role. The call from India, emphasising dialogue and stability, is rhetorical and not backed by risk-taking and bold measures.
For now, we see two sides, stubbornly holding on to their positions. The US-Israel alignment wants Iran destroyed and a people’s uprising and an ultimate regime change, a pipe-dream from start-to-finish. best. With no clear winner, the conflict risks becoming a long-term, low-intensity war with massive economic disruption, where Gulf states are forced into the conflict despite.
The best-case scenario is this: Both sides see outright victory far too remote and engage in sincere negotiations. That alone would be the X factor for peace in this conflict.
_______________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
