Thank you for making a thoughtful point about Iran not being Iraq. WAY TOO MANY people just automatically draw their comparisons to right to Iraq when almost anything happens anywhere frankly… Great piece :)
What a thoughtful and exceptionally written analysis... a must read for those who want to "truly" understand what's happening in our world today. Thank you!
Fantastic analysis. The point about European politicians being stuck between their electorate and fast moving events is prescient.
I too grew up in Eastern Europe, in a country neighboring yours. I saw what the war and gangster government can do to a country and its institutions. My Iranian friends are all celebrating what’s going on, an important signal.
You put to words what my gut was telling me. There was no way Trump comprehended this plan - it wasn't his. My concern is that the end game and exit strategy is still unclear.
This piece makes an important moral distinction between Iran and the Islamic Republic — one that is too often blurred in public debate.
Where the conversation now shifts is from the strike itself to the structural consequences. If we are indeed in an interregnum where legality and power are diverging, the decisive phase will not be kinetic but institutional.
Regime decapitation is measurable in weeks. State reconstruction is measured in decades.
Whether this moment becomes liberation, fragmentation, or prolonged instability will depend less on the bombs — and more on what replaces the system they target.
That’s the first thing that came to many people’s minds. But Europe has been getting better at deterring those for several years now - it’s been a steep learning curve though. Security concerns are present, that’s for sure.
Provocative commentary in the best sense, as in forcing one to rethink, challenge one’s assumptions, and take another look. At the same time, by doing the very thing it warns against up front—explaining exactly what is going on and stating clearly what it means for all of us, and therefore misrepresenting chaos, confusion and complexity as somehow structurally coherent—it falls into its own trap. There are so many known and unknown unknowns laced through this bewildering Iran exercise that presenting it (by implication) as the strategic master plan of a series of deep thinkers ((whoever and wherever they are) is possibly the biggest misrepresentation of all. More the stuff of James Bond clarity (beneath the bells and whistles) than collapsing world order. Very ambivalently done!
A powerful piece of analysis, and a powerful moral argument too. Thank you. I agree that in Europe, and particularly over here in the UK, Iraq has an outsized constraining effect on our strategic culture. Short termism is also far too prevalent in our thinking.
But I diverge on where that takes your argument. In Europe, by far the more serious threat is Russia. Our attention and resources are finite. On that basis alone, we should not allow ourselves to be drawn in. Taking a longer term view, that's where I end up.
The Iran/Islamic Republic distinction is one that gets lost in almost every Western analysis I read, and you articulate it better than most. Your framing of Europe as the reluctant stakeholder with the most to lose is also underexplored — it’s a thread I find myself returning to as well.
Where I’d add a note of caution is on the transition scenario. The succession dynamics around Mojtaba make that optimistic path considerably narrower than it might appear right now — the IRGC has its man at the top, and the conditions for de-escalation, let alone reform, are particularly thin at this moment.
Thanks, I agree with a lot of this, but I have some issues.
Ukraine - unless it resolves very quickly this will be singularly bad for Ukraine, with vastly higher oil prices for russia, and all of the US production of Patriot- and other SAM missiles going to replenish Israeli/Gulf stocks. I expect virtually no new US production being allocated to Ukraine this year due to this. This gives putin hope=more war.
Europe - yes Iraq plays a part, and not just electorally, we were dragged into a disastrous war based on blatant lies, a war that cost of lives, blood, money, and led to the rise of ISIS - which caused vast waves of refugees which gave us a resurgent far right. Europe cannot deal with millions of Iranian refugees. Europe does not trust the US on this, Iranians have been 'weeks' from nuclear weapons for at least the last 20 years if we trust the US/Israel - been week's from nukes for over 1000 weeks... see why this isn't to be trusted so easily?
There was a deal in place preventing further enrichment, Trump tore up that deal and set us on this course. Why? Because it had Obama's name on it
As to energy prices, those could be slashed overnight by suspending carbon offset rules, and in the longer term by rebooting nuclear power.
Will there be a civil war in Iran? What is the risk here? How far will interested parties go to prevent/encourage this? Israel will go all out to cause chaos, the last thing they want is a strong united Iran, democratic or not. Just like they don't want a united Syria, democratic or not, or a democratic and healthy Lebanon. Divide and conquer.
Why was Saudi pushing so hard on this? Saudi Arabia is as bad if not worse towards their own citizens as Iran.
All these things aside, any nation that is reasonably large and has reason to fear its neighbours will be looking at developing nuclear weapons, this is the lesson from Ukraine and now Iran - you must have nukes to avoid being attacked by the 'great' powers.
That was probably Iran's strategic mistake, made decades ago, ironically it was a decision by Khamenei to not go the last mile on nukes, while not abandoning it completely. They invited the destruction by their own actions.
Thanks for the substantive response - you've raised legitimate points worth addressing directly.
1. Regarding Ukraine: The Zelenskyy administration and Ukrainian military have been vocal about supporting strikes on Iranian targets specifically because Iran is one of Russia's last functional allies and critical to sanctions evasion. Despite having Shahed factories domestically, Russia remains dependent on Iranian components - they even liquidated gold reserves last year to pay Tehran. More importantly, this disrupts Chinese supply chains and undermines Beijing's ability to continue financing Russia's war effort. Russia cannot sustain this conflict without Chinese backing. From Ukraine's perspective, degrading that relationship is a net positive in the long-term.
2. On the Obama deal: You're right that Europe has every reason to distrust US nuclear policy, but the JCPOA had tons of structural weaknesses. It required 24-hour notice for declared site inspections, but critically, Iran unlocked billions in sanctions relief that flowed directly to proxy financing across Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. That chaos enabled Russia to weaponize against Europe through migration destabilization. The enrichment caps were also looser than advertised. Under Obama's tenure, proxy proliferation accelerated. There's a real cost when you delegitimise the hegemon's military credibility, and it's always the Europeans footing the bill while Americans vote in their comfort for the likes of Obama and Trump.
As for military aid to Ukraine: nearly all current Ukraine support is European now - we're the ones sending equipment, not Washington. Yes, we buy some of it (namely, Patriots) from them, but otherwise - it's been all Europe since 2025 onwards, and that's unlikely to change during this administration.
Regarding Iran and their nuclear development: This isn't really about enrichment capacity. Iran has already caused significant damage without nuclear weapons - their proxies have made Red Sea trade routes prohibitively expensive through insurance premiums and rerouting. Europe pays that price in inflation and rising costs for goods. The nuclear dimension is secondary to the broader destabilization, in my opinion.
Regarding the Israeli strategy: I understand the skepticism, but Israeli society has genuine skin in the game - universal conscription, every generation in major conflicts, political class with direct losses (Netanyahu, despite my dislike of him, lost his brother in Operation Entebbe, among others). That's structurally different from European model. Their long-term calculus isn't regional destabilization (it hurts them more than it helps them); it's securing the Abraham Accords-style arrangements with other states in the region, or at least - some long-term peace treaties like the ones with Egypt and Jordan. Cultural connections aside (and yes, they are quite strong between Jews and Persians), they are not looking for a chaotic, civil war torn Iran, but something similar to their diplomatic relations prior to the Islamic revolution. Will they achieve that objective? Time will tell.
Regarding Syria/Iraq: These countries cannot unify under a single banner - they're too tribally fractured. What they need is something closer to the Öcalan model (democratic confederalism) or a Bosnia-style arrangement where Sunni, Shia, Druze, Yazidi, Alawite, and Christian communities have regional autonomy without forced centralization. Honest to God, I really don't see any other way for any of these countries to exist in a relative domestic peace (not even talking about external one).
When it comes to Europe - The adversarial attitudes in the region is precisely why the Middle East can't remain America's issue. Without military and intelligence capacity, our interests get written out of strategic decisions entirely. This strike is part of the new Cold War, and China is the actual target. Several European nations understand this quietly - Spain's obvious CCP alignment being the exception, not the rule. But the Middle East is our backyard, not theirs. Anything that goes well will be excellent for us, and anything that goes bad - will be catastrophic. Hence, why Europe needs to be an active participant in securing the region (especially the Levant!), and not watching from the sidelines.
We just can't afford strategic passivity on our own periphery. That's the real issue to me.
1 - I know Zelenskyi voiced support for the Iranian people, and long-term, any ally of russia that falls is a good thing.
My main worry is the short term, the next 12 months, the US produces some 600 Patriot SAMs/year, if the Gulf countries and Israel fire any amount that comes close to that, you know the US will prioritize their replenishment over Ukraine.
The way US arms sales work means that the US has no firm delivery dates, and can re-route at will. Which is why some countries can wait a decade or longer for systems or munitions paid for, while others jump the queue.
I know russia sent some gold to Iran as payments last year, but most of it went to China. The biggest asset Iran has to offer is their sanctions busting networks, and I’d love to see those get destroyed - but they pay crooked Europeans and Americans, I don't see that happening.
If the Iran war draws out, or descends into civil war, that will cause disruptions for deliveries to Ukraine in the period they're most needed.
And it will significantly boost natural gas/oil prices, possibly saving the faltering russian economy. This couldn't have come at a better time for russia.
Most of the parts will find their way to russia anyways, the different IRGC clans will still need money, and lets not forget most of the parts they need for missiles and Gerans come from the West (incl. Japan).
2 - It wasn't a perfect deal, but there was no attempt to improve it. Proliferation of proxies like Hamas has nothing to do with nukes, they were there long before the Obama deal anyways, it was all about securing US hegemony in a part of the world the US has been singularly bad at understanding.
I doubt very much that Trump cared one iota about anything apart from Obama's name. Obama's failure in Syria was catastrophic, but shouldn't be an excuse to lie about the reasons for attacking Iran, again and again and again.
My issue with the constant harping on about nukes is that it's dishonest, and counterproductive, furthering the problems the US ostensibly want to fix. It sounds like WMDs in Iraq.
Trump is on record saying he'd happily work with the regime, ‘as soon as they select the new guys’. All they have to say is no nukes - he says. He cited Venezuela ("only two people lost their jobs").
Any new regime would be mad to not build and test nukes at breakneck speed, once they have them they are secure, until then they're open to massive attacks - can’t recall North Korea being bombed lately... Trump is rather friendly with Kim.
China will buy more russian oil and gas.
At the end of the day, the US never forgave Iran for the embassy occupation, and kicking them out after their installed puppet failed. That has shaped US policy since, same with their petty blockade of Cuba.
If they had tried rapprochement with these two, like they did Vietnam, they'd be allies by now.
If Israel foments civil war in Iran, which I very much suspect them of wanting, that will cause chaos. I am virtually certain Israel won't allow Iran to become a US ally, not in one piece at any rate.
Their desire to be invincible through strength alone, doesn't allow for strong, unified, neighbors. They weren't always like this, but the religious right has captured the state. Not hiding it anymore.
They have shown time and time again that what they want are weak unstable neighbors they can bully at will. They attacked Lebanon long before Hezbollah was a thing, committing mass murders, not a new thing thing.
They more or less created Hamas to counter the influence of the PLO, and funded them along with Qatar and Iran. They understood that funding fundamentalists to counter secularists wasn't good for Israel, but it provided the conflict Netanyahu needed to stay in power.
PLO/Fatah has bent over backwards to accommodate them in the West Bank, it's all been for nought as Israel is annexing it and building settlements.
Syria, Iraq, and Iran, can all function as unified states, provided Israel and the US stop meddling in their affairs.
Some federalism would be good, I believe Syria is looking at that, and Iraq is de-facto federal, it could finally give the Kurds some peace.
You mentioned the Bosnian model, but that is a failed state, a failed model, with rampant ethno-nationalism, an economy in pieces, run by committee, with a non-Bosnian overlord.
It can kick off into a new civil war any day. You may recall it was the US and Europe who forced the Dayton agreement on a weak Bosnia (the same states that stopped weapons to Bosniaks, while allowing Germany to arm Kroatians and russia the Serbs).
It took them 5 years, untold dead, didn't even react until Srebrenica. In the end Bosniaks had to seek assistance from Saudi, which eventually came, but conditioned on new mosques, with Saudi trained imams, and new religious rules.
I would like to see the US stop meddling in the Middle East, it has no understanding of the region, and an abysmal failure rate.
Europe has been almost as bad, creating many of these problems to begin with, there simply isn't anything we can meaningfully do. Regime change doesn't work. The refugee crises that happened were caused by US actions.
Let Erdogan deal with them, he knows what he's doing, our politicians simply do not. They don't speak the languages, don't understand the various facets of Islam, don't understand the cultures - we simply have no competence to deal with the Middle East.
We have, as does the US, an almost 100% failure rate of dealing with the fallout from destroying the Ottoman empire. Destabilizing one of the few stable nations in the region isn't a good idea.
Iran - left of center democratic governement - oh no, let's install a dictator - dictator weak and falls to the Islamic Revolution - refuse to work with the mullahs ever since - let Israel bomb at will for decades.
Iran - we don't like the mullahs, let's convince Saddam Hussein to start a war with them and supply the weapons - did not go well
Iraq 1 - surprisingly well planned, executed, and restrained - a rare win!
Iraq 2 - invade based on lies - install corrupt people with little to no popular support - fire every Baath party member from the police, army, civil service - create ISIS - refugee crisis.
Syria - support the opposition - declare red lines - ignore red lines and invite russia in - ignore Israel siding with Assad - ignore russian war crimes - boost ISIS - refugee crisis.
Libya - depose a vile, but tamed, Khadaffi, no plan for the morrow - civil war - fund human traffickers by paying them to capture and extort refugees before they reach Europe.
Afghanistan - invade based on lies - install corrupt people with little to no popular support - run roughshod for a couple of decades - evacuate with no plan - Taliban returns - more refugees.
Ironic tidbit - Trump actually made a mierals deal with the Taliban along with his surrender deal, don't think that's still valid.
The Kurds - betrayed for a century, yet still they work with us, in the hopes that the West will keep its word and give them their homeland - the West will not do that.
No, we've failed the Middle East since we started meddling, time to realize we need a new approach.
I think what Europe and the US has done in Syria with al-Sharaa is probably the right way to go about it.
Hands off, tell them privately what we want/expect, no public declarations of rules and red lines, give them the support they're asking for.
It won't be a European style democracy, but if we keep our mitts off their governance, something they, and we, can live with may emerge.
Of course the "old rules" still apply -- they're just being increasingly ignored. They're actually pretty good rules. Centuries and lives went into crafting them. The periods and places in which these rules were implemented produced by far the most desirable ways of life in human history.
"[T]he new ones have not been written" is weasel talk. How about restoring the "old" ones? How about arranging for the rules not to be ignored? No discussion there at all.
I have a much more cynical point of view. The war was started because USA wanted a "win" when neither Ukraine nor Greenland worked out for the moment, and because the Gulf States wanted it, and had invested a lot in the current US leadership. That the Iran regime is horrible and loathed by most exile Iranians did not matter much. The least likely outcome is a free and democratic Iran. Trump is a man favored by fortune, so he may be lucky, but chances should be quite small. The second possible outcome is that after a while the situation will settle down in a kind of status quo ante. Trump will then be able to claim victory, so it will also be good for him, as good as Venezuela. But there is no upside for any European country to join because there is no real gain, and Trump will claim all the credit anyway. The third possibility is a protracted Middle East war. This has downsides but also upsides for Europe: USA will likely enter on a collision course with Russia, and will have less bandwidth for a while to push for the likes of AfD and Le Pen in Europe. In any case, there will be no upside for Europe to join in this scenario either. In fact, Europe has not been asked to join. Most European countries were even not informed in advance. See e.g. the Italian defense minister, stuck in Dubai where he had flown the day before on a family vacation.
Best analysis on the Internet Today! And there is a lot of commentary out there.
Your strategic method of laying out the facts........and then connecting those dots.......just makes common sense.
Thank You!!!
Thank you for making a thoughtful point about Iran not being Iraq. WAY TOO MANY people just automatically draw their comparisons to right to Iraq when almost anything happens anywhere frankly… Great piece :)
What a thoughtful and exceptionally written analysis... a must read for those who want to "truly" understand what's happening in our world today. Thank you!
Fantastic analysis. The point about European politicians being stuck between their electorate and fast moving events is prescient.
I too grew up in Eastern Europe, in a country neighboring yours. I saw what the war and gangster government can do to a country and its institutions. My Iranian friends are all celebrating what’s going on, an important signal.
You put to words what my gut was telling me. There was no way Trump comprehended this plan - it wasn't his. My concern is that the end game and exit strategy is still unclear.
This piece makes an important moral distinction between Iran and the Islamic Republic — one that is too often blurred in public debate.
Where the conversation now shifts is from the strike itself to the structural consequences. If we are indeed in an interregnum where legality and power are diverging, the decisive phase will not be kinetic but institutional.
Regime decapitation is measurable in weeks. State reconstruction is measured in decades.
Whether this moment becomes liberation, fragmentation, or prolonged instability will depend less on the bombs — and more on what replaces the system they target.
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
I do wonder how concerned France, Germany, and UK leaders are about internal terrorist attacks as part of their reticence?
That’s the first thing that came to many people’s minds. But Europe has been getting better at deterring those for several years now - it’s been a steep learning curve though. Security concerns are present, that’s for sure.
Provocative commentary in the best sense, as in forcing one to rethink, challenge one’s assumptions, and take another look. At the same time, by doing the very thing it warns against up front—explaining exactly what is going on and stating clearly what it means for all of us, and therefore misrepresenting chaos, confusion and complexity as somehow structurally coherent—it falls into its own trap. There are so many known and unknown unknowns laced through this bewildering Iran exercise that presenting it (by implication) as the strategic master plan of a series of deep thinkers ((whoever and wherever they are) is possibly the biggest misrepresentation of all. More the stuff of James Bond clarity (beneath the bells and whistles) than collapsing world order. Very ambivalently done!
A powerful piece of analysis, and a powerful moral argument too. Thank you. I agree that in Europe, and particularly over here in the UK, Iraq has an outsized constraining effect on our strategic culture. Short termism is also far too prevalent in our thinking.
But I diverge on where that takes your argument. In Europe, by far the more serious threat is Russia. Our attention and resources are finite. On that basis alone, we should not allow ourselves to be drawn in. Taking a longer term view, that's where I end up.
The Iran/Islamic Republic distinction is one that gets lost in almost every Western analysis I read, and you articulate it better than most. Your framing of Europe as the reluctant stakeholder with the most to lose is also underexplored — it’s a thread I find myself returning to as well.
Where I’d add a note of caution is on the transition scenario. The succession dynamics around Mojtaba make that optimistic path considerably narrower than it might appear right now — the IRGC has its man at the top, and the conditions for de-escalation, let alone reform, are particularly thin at this moment.
Excellent piece. Following with interest.
An excellent and incisive assessment.
I can’t believe what I just read. An intelligent, balanced understanding of the region and context.
This piece should be required reading worldwide…
Really nice work.
Thanks, I agree with a lot of this, but I have some issues.
Ukraine - unless it resolves very quickly this will be singularly bad for Ukraine, with vastly higher oil prices for russia, and all of the US production of Patriot- and other SAM missiles going to replenish Israeli/Gulf stocks. I expect virtually no new US production being allocated to Ukraine this year due to this. This gives putin hope=more war.
Europe - yes Iraq plays a part, and not just electorally, we were dragged into a disastrous war based on blatant lies, a war that cost of lives, blood, money, and led to the rise of ISIS - which caused vast waves of refugees which gave us a resurgent far right. Europe cannot deal with millions of Iranian refugees. Europe does not trust the US on this, Iranians have been 'weeks' from nuclear weapons for at least the last 20 years if we trust the US/Israel - been week's from nukes for over 1000 weeks... see why this isn't to be trusted so easily?
There was a deal in place preventing further enrichment, Trump tore up that deal and set us on this course. Why? Because it had Obama's name on it
As to energy prices, those could be slashed overnight by suspending carbon offset rules, and in the longer term by rebooting nuclear power.
Will there be a civil war in Iran? What is the risk here? How far will interested parties go to prevent/encourage this? Israel will go all out to cause chaos, the last thing they want is a strong united Iran, democratic or not. Just like they don't want a united Syria, democratic or not, or a democratic and healthy Lebanon. Divide and conquer.
Why was Saudi pushing so hard on this? Saudi Arabia is as bad if not worse towards their own citizens as Iran.
All these things aside, any nation that is reasonably large and has reason to fear its neighbours will be looking at developing nuclear weapons, this is the lesson from Ukraine and now Iran - you must have nukes to avoid being attacked by the 'great' powers.
That was probably Iran's strategic mistake, made decades ago, ironically it was a decision by Khamenei to not go the last mile on nukes, while not abandoning it completely. They invited the destruction by their own actions.
Hi Sasha,
Thanks for the substantive response - you've raised legitimate points worth addressing directly.
1. Regarding Ukraine: The Zelenskyy administration and Ukrainian military have been vocal about supporting strikes on Iranian targets specifically because Iran is one of Russia's last functional allies and critical to sanctions evasion. Despite having Shahed factories domestically, Russia remains dependent on Iranian components - they even liquidated gold reserves last year to pay Tehran. More importantly, this disrupts Chinese supply chains and undermines Beijing's ability to continue financing Russia's war effort. Russia cannot sustain this conflict without Chinese backing. From Ukraine's perspective, degrading that relationship is a net positive in the long-term.
2. On the Obama deal: You're right that Europe has every reason to distrust US nuclear policy, but the JCPOA had tons of structural weaknesses. It required 24-hour notice for declared site inspections, but critically, Iran unlocked billions in sanctions relief that flowed directly to proxy financing across Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. That chaos enabled Russia to weaponize against Europe through migration destabilization. The enrichment caps were also looser than advertised. Under Obama's tenure, proxy proliferation accelerated. There's a real cost when you delegitimise the hegemon's military credibility, and it's always the Europeans footing the bill while Americans vote in their comfort for the likes of Obama and Trump.
As for military aid to Ukraine: nearly all current Ukraine support is European now - we're the ones sending equipment, not Washington. Yes, we buy some of it (namely, Patriots) from them, but otherwise - it's been all Europe since 2025 onwards, and that's unlikely to change during this administration.
Regarding Iran and their nuclear development: This isn't really about enrichment capacity. Iran has already caused significant damage without nuclear weapons - their proxies have made Red Sea trade routes prohibitively expensive through insurance premiums and rerouting. Europe pays that price in inflation and rising costs for goods. The nuclear dimension is secondary to the broader destabilization, in my opinion.
Regarding the Israeli strategy: I understand the skepticism, but Israeli society has genuine skin in the game - universal conscription, every generation in major conflicts, political class with direct losses (Netanyahu, despite my dislike of him, lost his brother in Operation Entebbe, among others). That's structurally different from European model. Their long-term calculus isn't regional destabilization (it hurts them more than it helps them); it's securing the Abraham Accords-style arrangements with other states in the region, or at least - some long-term peace treaties like the ones with Egypt and Jordan. Cultural connections aside (and yes, they are quite strong between Jews and Persians), they are not looking for a chaotic, civil war torn Iran, but something similar to their diplomatic relations prior to the Islamic revolution. Will they achieve that objective? Time will tell.
Regarding Syria/Iraq: These countries cannot unify under a single banner - they're too tribally fractured. What they need is something closer to the Öcalan model (democratic confederalism) or a Bosnia-style arrangement where Sunni, Shia, Druze, Yazidi, Alawite, and Christian communities have regional autonomy without forced centralization. Honest to God, I really don't see any other way for any of these countries to exist in a relative domestic peace (not even talking about external one).
When it comes to Europe - The adversarial attitudes in the region is precisely why the Middle East can't remain America's issue. Without military and intelligence capacity, our interests get written out of strategic decisions entirely. This strike is part of the new Cold War, and China is the actual target. Several European nations understand this quietly - Spain's obvious CCP alignment being the exception, not the rule. But the Middle East is our backyard, not theirs. Anything that goes well will be excellent for us, and anything that goes bad - will be catastrophic. Hence, why Europe needs to be an active participant in securing the region (especially the Levant!), and not watching from the sidelines.
We just can't afford strategic passivity on our own periphery. That's the real issue to me.
Thanks for a considered response.
1 - I know Zelenskyi voiced support for the Iranian people, and long-term, any ally of russia that falls is a good thing.
My main worry is the short term, the next 12 months, the US produces some 600 Patriot SAMs/year, if the Gulf countries and Israel fire any amount that comes close to that, you know the US will prioritize their replenishment over Ukraine.
The way US arms sales work means that the US has no firm delivery dates, and can re-route at will. Which is why some countries can wait a decade or longer for systems or munitions paid for, while others jump the queue.
I know russia sent some gold to Iran as payments last year, but most of it went to China. The biggest asset Iran has to offer is their sanctions busting networks, and I’d love to see those get destroyed - but they pay crooked Europeans and Americans, I don't see that happening.
If the Iran war draws out, or descends into civil war, that will cause disruptions for deliveries to Ukraine in the period they're most needed.
And it will significantly boost natural gas/oil prices, possibly saving the faltering russian economy. This couldn't have come at a better time for russia.
Most of the parts will find their way to russia anyways, the different IRGC clans will still need money, and lets not forget most of the parts they need for missiles and Gerans come from the West (incl. Japan).
2 - It wasn't a perfect deal, but there was no attempt to improve it. Proliferation of proxies like Hamas has nothing to do with nukes, they were there long before the Obama deal anyways, it was all about securing US hegemony in a part of the world the US has been singularly bad at understanding.
I doubt very much that Trump cared one iota about anything apart from Obama's name. Obama's failure in Syria was catastrophic, but shouldn't be an excuse to lie about the reasons for attacking Iran, again and again and again.
My issue with the constant harping on about nukes is that it's dishonest, and counterproductive, furthering the problems the US ostensibly want to fix. It sounds like WMDs in Iraq.
Trump is on record saying he'd happily work with the regime, ‘as soon as they select the new guys’. All they have to say is no nukes - he says. He cited Venezuela ("only two people lost their jobs").
Any new regime would be mad to not build and test nukes at breakneck speed, once they have them they are secure, until then they're open to massive attacks - can’t recall North Korea being bombed lately... Trump is rather friendly with Kim.
China will buy more russian oil and gas.
At the end of the day, the US never forgave Iran for the embassy occupation, and kicking them out after their installed puppet failed. That has shaped US policy since, same with their petty blockade of Cuba.
If they had tried rapprochement with these two, like they did Vietnam, they'd be allies by now.
If Israel foments civil war in Iran, which I very much suspect them of wanting, that will cause chaos. I am virtually certain Israel won't allow Iran to become a US ally, not in one piece at any rate.
Their desire to be invincible through strength alone, doesn't allow for strong, unified, neighbors. They weren't always like this, but the religious right has captured the state. Not hiding it anymore.
They have shown time and time again that what they want are weak unstable neighbors they can bully at will. They attacked Lebanon long before Hezbollah was a thing, committing mass murders, not a new thing thing.
They more or less created Hamas to counter the influence of the PLO, and funded them along with Qatar and Iran. They understood that funding fundamentalists to counter secularists wasn't good for Israel, but it provided the conflict Netanyahu needed to stay in power.
PLO/Fatah has bent over backwards to accommodate them in the West Bank, it's all been for nought as Israel is annexing it and building settlements.
Syria, Iraq, and Iran, can all function as unified states, provided Israel and the US stop meddling in their affairs.
Some federalism would be good, I believe Syria is looking at that, and Iraq is de-facto federal, it could finally give the Kurds some peace.
You mentioned the Bosnian model, but that is a failed state, a failed model, with rampant ethno-nationalism, an economy in pieces, run by committee, with a non-Bosnian overlord.
It can kick off into a new civil war any day. You may recall it was the US and Europe who forced the Dayton agreement on a weak Bosnia (the same states that stopped weapons to Bosniaks, while allowing Germany to arm Kroatians and russia the Serbs).
It took them 5 years, untold dead, didn't even react until Srebrenica. In the end Bosniaks had to seek assistance from Saudi, which eventually came, but conditioned on new mosques, with Saudi trained imams, and new religious rules.
I would like to see the US stop meddling in the Middle East, it has no understanding of the region, and an abysmal failure rate.
Europe has been almost as bad, creating many of these problems to begin with, there simply isn't anything we can meaningfully do. Regime change doesn't work. The refugee crises that happened were caused by US actions.
Let Erdogan deal with them, he knows what he's doing, our politicians simply do not. They don't speak the languages, don't understand the various facets of Islam, don't understand the cultures - we simply have no competence to deal with the Middle East.
We have, as does the US, an almost 100% failure rate of dealing with the fallout from destroying the Ottoman empire. Destabilizing one of the few stable nations in the region isn't a good idea.
Iran - left of center democratic governement - oh no, let's install a dictator - dictator weak and falls to the Islamic Revolution - refuse to work with the mullahs ever since - let Israel bomb at will for decades.
Iran - we don't like the mullahs, let's convince Saddam Hussein to start a war with them and supply the weapons - did not go well
Iraq 1 - surprisingly well planned, executed, and restrained - a rare win!
Iraq 2 - invade based on lies - install corrupt people with little to no popular support - fire every Baath party member from the police, army, civil service - create ISIS - refugee crisis.
Syria - support the opposition - declare red lines - ignore red lines and invite russia in - ignore Israel siding with Assad - ignore russian war crimes - boost ISIS - refugee crisis.
Libya - depose a vile, but tamed, Khadaffi, no plan for the morrow - civil war - fund human traffickers by paying them to capture and extort refugees before they reach Europe.
Afghanistan - invade based on lies - install corrupt people with little to no popular support - run roughshod for a couple of decades - evacuate with no plan - Taliban returns - more refugees.
Ironic tidbit - Trump actually made a mierals deal with the Taliban along with his surrender deal, don't think that's still valid.
The Kurds - betrayed for a century, yet still they work with us, in the hopes that the West will keep its word and give them their homeland - the West will not do that.
No, we've failed the Middle East since we started meddling, time to realize we need a new approach.
I think what Europe and the US has done in Syria with al-Sharaa is probably the right way to go about it.
Hands off, tell them privately what we want/expect, no public declarations of rules and red lines, give them the support they're asking for.
It won't be a European style democracy, but if we keep our mitts off their governance, something they, and we, can live with may emerge.
Of course the "old rules" still apply -- they're just being increasingly ignored. They're actually pretty good rules. Centuries and lives went into crafting them. The periods and places in which these rules were implemented produced by far the most desirable ways of life in human history.
"[T]he new ones have not been written" is weasel talk. How about restoring the "old" ones? How about arranging for the rules not to be ignored? No discussion there at all.
One major mistake. You put the USA on the wrong side of the ledger. Only higher oil prices can save Putin’s war.
I have a much more cynical point of view. The war was started because USA wanted a "win" when neither Ukraine nor Greenland worked out for the moment, and because the Gulf States wanted it, and had invested a lot in the current US leadership. That the Iran regime is horrible and loathed by most exile Iranians did not matter much. The least likely outcome is a free and democratic Iran. Trump is a man favored by fortune, so he may be lucky, but chances should be quite small. The second possible outcome is that after a while the situation will settle down in a kind of status quo ante. Trump will then be able to claim victory, so it will also be good for him, as good as Venezuela. But there is no upside for any European country to join because there is no real gain, and Trump will claim all the credit anyway. The third possibility is a protracted Middle East war. This has downsides but also upsides for Europe: USA will likely enter on a collision course with Russia, and will have less bandwidth for a while to push for the likes of AfD and Le Pen in Europe. In any case, there will be no upside for Europe to join in this scenario either. In fact, Europe has not been asked to join. Most European countries were even not informed in advance. See e.g. the Italian defense minister, stuck in Dubai where he had flown the day before on a family vacation.