Iran: The Aim Is Not the Nuclear Program, But to Reconfigure Power in the Middle East in Favor of Israel

Original article: Irán: El objetivo no es el programa nuclear, es reconfigurar el poder en Medio Oriente a favor de Israel

By Stephanie Elías Musalem, Journalist

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a coordinated military offensive against Iran, marking a significant turning point in international relations.

In the initial strikes, hundreds of targets were bombed across various Iranian cities, including military facilities, energy centers, fuel depots, and also civilian areas.

In retaliation, Iran has responded with missiles, drones, and attacks on U.S. military bases deployed throughout the region.

Contrary to the official narrative, which focuses on neutralizing the alleged Iranian nuclear program and «saving» the population from the tyranny of the current regime, various analysts agree that the conflict reflects a much deeper geopolitical dispute.

An Attack Amid Negotiations

In the days leading up to the offensive, Washington and Tehran were engaged in indirect talks about Iran’s nuclear program with international mediation. According to international analyst Jaime Abedrapo, this context makes the official explanation of the U.S.-Israeli offensive seem unconvincing.

«The argument has always been that, and it has never been proven that Iran has the conditions to create such weapons. In fact, if they had that capability, they wouldn’t have been attacked the way they were,» he explains.

«Netanyahu has been pushing for over thirty years the idea of a direct attack on Iran. For Israel, eliminating or weakening that regime is key to consolidating its regional dominance,» he adds.

The Iranian Citizenry

One of the strategic calculations behind the attack on Iran seems to be the intent to provoke internal fractures that could weaken or even topple the regime.

In recent years, Iran has seen significant social protests linked to the economic crisis, political restrictions, and demands for civil rights, particularly regarding the situation of women. This context has led some analysts to suggest that military escalation could accelerate the regime’s weariness.

However, history shows that external aggression often produces the opposite effect: even societies deeply critical of their governments tend to rally together when facing a perceived foreign threat. In this sense, bombings might strengthen a national sentiment that transcends internal political divisions.

For international analyst Jaime Abedrapo, this reaction is a real possibility in the Iranian case. «The most likely outcome is the resurgence of a sort of patriotic sentiment in response to this aggression, which has already caused many civilian casualties,» he points out.

One incident that contributed to this sentiment was the bombing of a girls’ primary school in the city of Minab during the first days of the offensive. The attack left over a hundred civilian casualties, mostly girls, and caused a strong shock within the country.

Philosopher and analyst Rodrigo Karmy agrees that the internal situation in Iran is more ambiguous than often presented in Western political discourse.

«The Iranian regime is significantly worn down and has faced strong social mobilizations, particularly from the middle class that has been impoverished by both economic sanctions and the regime’s own policies. However, the disintegration of the Iranian regime would mean a total victory for Israel in the region. The situation is paradoxical: there exists a society questioning its own government, but that doesn’t mean they are pro-American or pro-Israeli, nor do they want their government to fall as a result of foreign intervention,» he explains.

The Struggle for Regional Hegemony

Karmy argues that the war must be understood within a broader process of transformation of the world order. In his view, the international system based on multilateral institutions is being replaced by a logic of competition among great powers.

«We are witnessing the exhaustion of the international order established after World War II. This order was based on institutions like the United Nations and relatively cosmopolitan globalization,» he explains. «What is emerging now is a different scenario: a more nationalist globalization where various empires seek to solidify their spheres of influence.»

According to Karmy, the attack on Iran is part of this process. «The United States aims to consolidate its sphere of influence in the West, China in Asia, Russia in Eurasia, and in this context, Israel seeks to position itself as the hegemonic power in the Middle East.»

Iran as a Strategic Obstacle

In this scenario, Iran emerges as one of the main obstacles to regional reconfiguration. Karmy points out that the offensive against Tehran is directly linked to the so-called Abraham Accords, promoted during Donald Trump’s presidency.

«The Abraham Accords aim to normalize relations between Israel and the Gulf monarchies. But this process also involves depoliticizing the Palestinian issue,» he explains. «If this normalization becomes fully consolidated, the possibility of a Palestinian state becomes virtually non-existent.»

For the analyst, Iranian support for actors like Hezbollah or Hamas has been one of the factors preventing the complete consolidation of this project. «The Hamas attack on October 7 interrupted this normalization process, which was rapidly advancing, even with Saudi Arabia.»

A War with Global Implications

The conflict also has a crucial economic and energy dimension. Iran controls one of the most important maritime routes on the planet: the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil flows.

The war has already severely affected this route, raising fears of a global energy crisis. For Abedrapo, this dimension also explains the United States’ interest in weakening Iran.

«What seems to be Trump’s underlying goal is to strike at China, which depends on 30% of the hydrocarbons flowing through the Strait of Hormuz, which leaves Iran and supplies its productive needs,» he explains.

In this sense, it is argued that this action against Iran was planned in advance. «It’s consistent with having struck against the Venezuelan regime. Today, the United States has a supply of oil that it did not have before, which can be seen as a necessary piece to effectively strike at Iran without suffering the market costs of a hydrocarbon supply shortage that would have resulted,» he adds.

The Decline of Law and Palestine Off the Agenda

For Abedrapo, a fundamental factor revealing the strategy of pressing this war is that it has once again managed to align certain European sectors that were drifting away.

«Israel had been severely impacted in both its country image and its own legitimacy. Countries in the European Union, which had been its historical allies, recognized the Palestinian state. The war against Iran has allowed Israel to once again tune in with a common enemy for these countries, especially the big three: Germany, France, and the United Kingdom,» he notes.

«A secondary effect is that no one is talking about Palestine anymore. Palestine is removed from the urgent agenda because the media and political focus shifts to Iran. This pulls focus away from the peace plan that aims to supplant the United Nations system. In some way, Israel has done everything possible to erode the international regime,» he adds.

Who Will Win This War?

Amid the conflict, the analysis of Chinese-Canadian educator and geopolitical commentator Jiang Xueqin, based in Beijing, has gained prominence. In 2024, he made three predictions that have resurfaced widely: that Donald Trump would win the elections, that his administration would initiate a war against Iran under the narrative of a preventive attack, and that the United States would end up losing.

According to Jiang, the current war should not be understood as a conventional military campaign. «What we are witnessing is a war of attrition,» he states.

According to his analysis, Iran has spent over 20 years preparing for this scenario and does not seek to defeat the United States militarily in classical terms, but rather to progressively increase the economic and strategic costs of the conflict.

«Iran does not need to win on the battlefield. Its strategy consists of hitting the economic system that supports U.S. hegemony,» he says.

According to Jiang, Iran is betting on an attrition strategy based on attacking Gulf energy infrastructures and pressuring oil routes, aiming to make global energy supply more expensive and generate increasingly high economic and political costs for the United States and its allies.

Stephanie Elías Musalem