By Henry Maxwell
Senior World Affairs Analyst, Wide World News
February 28, 2026
The current push by the United States and Israel toward direct confrontation with Iran is not only about “security” or “deterrence.” It is deeply tied to regional hegemony, domestic politics, control of energy routes, and an attempt to preserve Israeli military dominance after the devastation of Gaza and the global outrage that followed. Any large‑scale attack on Iran would risk unleashing a far wider conflict across the Middle East and even boomerang back onto US interests and security.
What Washington and Tel Aviv really want
For Israel, Iran is the strategic enemy that justifies permanent militarisation and extraordinary measures at home and abroad. Tehran’s support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, various militias in Syria and Iraq, and Palestinian factions is seen in Tel Aviv as the core obstacle to maintaining unchallenged military superiority in the region. Weakening Iran’s missile and drone capabilities, nuclear programme and network of allies is therefore about securing long‑term Israeli regional primacy, not just responding to any single attack.
The US, meanwhile, has several overlapping motives:
- Preserving control over key energy corridors and chokepoints (Hormuz, Red Sea connections, Gulf routes) that underpin the global economy and the dollar‑centred system.
- Containing any rival bloc in West Asia, particularly one linking Iran, Syria, parts of Iraq, and possibly Russia and China, which could undermine US influence and military basing.
- Demonstrating to allies that Washington is still the indispensable security guarantor after its credibility was damaged in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A strike on Iran – whether limited or large‑scale – serves these aims by reminding both adversaries and “clients” that the US remains willing to use force to defend its architecture of dominance, especially when that architecture is inseparable from Israel’s security doctrine.
The Gaza genocide and unconditional US alignment
The war in Gaza, with tens of thousands of Palestinians killed, entire neighbourhoods flattened, and basic infrastructure systematically targeted, has been widely described by scholars and human‑rights organisations as genocidal in intent or effect. Yet Washington has continued to provide diplomatic cover, advanced weapons, and vetoes at the UN, sending a clear message: there is effectively no red line Israel cannot cross without losing US backing.
This unconditional adhesion has several consequences:
- It signals to Israel’s leadership that any escalation, including direct confrontation with Iran, will likely be absorbed politically in Washington.
- It erodes US moral authority globally, especially in the Global South, where Gaza is read alongside Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan as part of a pattern of selective “humanitarian concern.”
- It incentivises hardliners in Israel to frame an Iran confrontation as a continuation of the “war on terror,” betting that US elites will rally around the familiar narrative of fighting “rogue regimes” and “sponsors of terrorism.”
The result is a dangerous feedback loop: Israel’s impunity in Gaza normalises extreme violence as policy, and US protection of that policy makes it easier to argue for attacking Iran as “the source” of regional resistance.
Spurious pretexts: nuclear fears and “terrorism”
Public justifications for striking Iran are likely to revolve around two main themes: stopping a nuclear weapon and fighting terrorism. Both are, at best, partial truths and, at worst, convenient pretexts.
- Iran, whatever its intentions, is still under inspection regimes and has not tested or openly deployed a nuclear weapon. The record of US intelligence failures and manipulation in Iraq (weapons of mass destruction that did not exist) makes any new “urgent” nuclear threat claim highly suspect.
- Labeling every Iranian‑aligned group as “terrorist” erases the political and social dimensions of these actors and conveniently avoids addressing the root causes of their support – occupation, humiliation, sanctions, and foreign military presence.
The more uncomfortable reality is that a non‑nuclear, but militarily and economically resilient Iran capable of projecting power through proxies and alliances is already enough for Washington and Tel Aviv to prefer regime weakening or regime change. The nuclear file offers a ready‑made moral frame that sells better domestically than saying bluntly: “We want to break a regional rival and protect our dominance.”
Risks of escalation in the Middle East
Any significant US‑Israeli strike on Iran would not be a neat, surgical event. Escalation paths are numerous and hard to control:
- Lebanon: Hezbollah, with its large rocket and missile arsenal, would almost certainly respond, opening a north‑front war against Israel that could be far more devastating than previous rounds. Israeli cities, ports and infrastructure would be under sustained fire.
- Syria and Iraq: Iran‑aligned militias would target US bases, convoys and diplomatic sites, forcing Washington to either absorb casualties or escalate further. This risks turning “limited strikes” into a rolling regional war.
- Gulf and Red Sea: Iran could disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, threaten energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, or use partners in Yemen to hit Red Sea traffic. Even temporary disruption would spike global energy prices and shake financial markets.
- Israel‑Palestine: An attack on Iran would be used to further securitise the Palestinian issue, justify harsher crackdowns in the West Bank, and delay any meaningful reconstruction or justice for Gaza under the guise of “wartime necessity.”
In each scenario, civilians pay the highest price, and existing humanitarian crises deepen. The narrative of “precision strikes” and “limited objectives” collapses quickly when supply chains, water systems, hospitals and refugee populations are caught in the crossfire.
Blowback for the United States
For the US, the dangers go beyond another costly and open‑ended Middle East conflict. Possible consequences include:
- Terror attacks and radicalisation: A war framed as yet another assault on a Muslim country, especially following Gaza, will likely fuel radicalisation worldwide and increase the risk of retaliatory attacks on US and allied targets.
- Strategic overextension: With commitments in Europe (NATO and Ukraine), Asia (China and Taiwan), and the Middle East, another large theatre of conflict risks stretching US military and political capital thin.
- Domestic backlash: US public opinion is already more sceptical about Israel than in previous decades, particularly among younger generations and minorities. A war “for Israel’s security” that brings US casualties, economic shocks, and moral outrage over civilian deaths could deepen domestic fracture.
- Geopolitical realignment: Countries in the Global South may accelerate diversification away from Western financial and security structures, seeing the US as a destabilising force rather than a guarantor of order. This empowers China, Russia and regional powers who present themselves as alternatives.
A cycle that must be broken
Ultimately, the push toward attacking Iran reflects a refusal to confront the deeper issues: occupation and dispossession in Palestine, unequal security arrangements, and a US‑centred order that treats some lives as expendable. As long as Washington grants Israel unconditional political and military protection, even after the horror of Gaza, leaders in both countries will believe they can gamble with regional stability to preserve their power and narratives.
Breaking this cycle requires exactly the opposite of what is happening now: real accountability for war crimes, an end to blanket diplomatic cover, genuine pressure for a just settlement for Palestinians, and a regional security architecture that includes, rather than demonises, Iran. Without that, the march toward another catastrophic war will continue – and no one, from Gaza to Tel Aviv to New York, will be truly secure.
