middle-east – EXIT! in English

If the Iran conflict escalates, the region faces the threat of another wave of statelessness.

Trump went way back, all the way to the 1979 embassy takeover and the 1983 Beirut bombing against U.S. troops, to justify the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran in an initial statement.[1] Even though the U.S. president’s public statements have an increasingly short half-life, and Trump could claim the opposite as early as tomorrow, he did ultimately name two military objectives of the current bombing campaign: the extensive disarmament of the Iranian regime, particularly regarding its nuclear program, and – optionally – its overthrow, should opportunities arise. Washington and Tel Aviv appear to be planning a multi-day intensive bombing campaign against key officials, the state apparatus, and its infrastructure, which would significantly weaken the regime, in the hope that this would spark an uprising that – supported by the CIA, Mossad, and special forces – would bring an end to the mullahs’ rule. On the evening of February 28, Trump also kept all options open in a brief phone interview with Axios: from short-term bombing to hinder the Iranian nuclear program to regime change.[2]

The talk of regime change is strikingly reminiscent of the murderous disaster the neocons under George W. Bush wrought during the invasion of Iraq—but this time, appearances are indeed deceptive. This is not only due to the simple fact that no significant ground forces are ready for an invasion. The neocons did indeed have the democratization of Iraq in mind, with the aim of subsequently integrating the country into the U.S. hegemonic system; they made no compromises with the remnants of the swiftly defeated Saddam regime in order to rebuild state structures from the ground up. The bloody consequences are well known: anomie, state collapse, a bloody civil war, and its “freezing” into a sham state fractured along ethnic and religious lines. The U.S. easily won the Iraq War against the crumbling Iraqi regime, but it lost the peace after the anomic centrifugal forces in Iraq were unleashed.

No “Democratization”

Trump’s imperialism, on the other hand, has a completely different thrust; Washington has long since shed the ideological veil of human rights imperialism as practiced by Western centers during the neoliberal decades.[3] The Islamofascist mullah regime, which had thousands of demonstrators massacred just a few weeks ago, is to be replaced by a regime subservient to the U.S. This approach is easier to carry out, as large parts of the state and repressive apparatus can simply be taken over. The precedent here is the case of Venezuela, whose head of state was effectively handed over to the U.S., while the power structures characterized by racketeering otherwise remained untouched . The offer of “total immunity” that Trump made in his speech to the officials of the Iranian regime clearly points in this direction.

The authoritarian alternative to the mullahs, the Shah’s son Reza Pahlavi, seems to have been dug straight out of the CIA’s dustbin of history.[4] His father’s genocidal regime was swept away in the wake of the 1979 revolution. His supporters are currently attempting to gain dominance within the Iranian opposition through nationalism, intimidation, and threats, while specifically targeting leftist and feminist movements. A miniature dictatorship is already taking shape. Meanwhile, tensions are also coming to light between the Pahlavi camp and Kurdish opposition groups, which have been accused by the monarchists of separatist aspirations.[5] Even U.S. officials have told media representatives that the Pahlavi monarchists are causing them “fear.”[6] The would-be Shah has already held official talks with members of the Trump administration, such as Steve Witkoff.

Crisis and War

Venezuela, the Al-Qaeda state of Syria,[7] and now, prospectively, Iran – crisis imperialism is merely returning to its roots in its twilight years by once again relying on authoritarian regimes.[8] The human rights imperialism of the neoliberal era thus represents only a brief historical episode. The novel aspect, however, is the crisis process of capital, which, in its economic and ecological dimensions, shapes geopolitical developments as well as concrete imperialist aggression. Without the crisis, there would be no American attempt at regime change.

This is not an abstraction; the global crisis of capital is manifesting itself in very concrete ways. Iran is already on the brink of ecological collapse. In parts of the country, the water supply has collapsed; even in the capital, Tehran, with its ten million inhabitants, the water is occasionally cut off. According to the British newspaper The Guardian, an evacuation of the Iranian capital is now even being considered should no substantial rainfall occur by the end of the year, as its population can barely be supplied with water.[9] The increasing extreme weather events, the lack of rain, and the ever more frequent heat waves are all leading to slumps in crop yields in Iran, which already has to import food.[10]

Iran has been subject to various forms of sanctions for decades; the regime has experience in circumventing or mitigating this economic pressure. However, the decisive tipping point was the current ecological and economic escalation of the crisis dynamics. The sanctions imposed on Iran have exacerbated the escalation, but did not trigger it. The protests were triggered by a massive devaluation and a surge in inflation caused by the suspension of subsidies for basic foodstuffs. At its core, the uprising against the mullahs – which was brutally suppressed – was economically motivated, as even basic foodstuffs became unaffordable for an increasing number of Iranians. The rising demand for imports (and foreign currency) is met with dwindling revenues: China is the Iranian oil industry’s most important customer, yet Beijing purchased the energy resource at a steep discount due to sanctions, further exacerbating Iran’s economic situation.

Reasons for War

The timing of the attack is likely indeed linked to the mass murderous suppression of the protests. It is a window of opportunity that the U.S. and Israel wish to exploit, during which the regime is weakened and has lost its legitimacy among large segments of the population. The time lag between the Iranian uprising and the Israeli-American attack is due to the logistics of war: The U.S. had to assemble its forces in the region, secure their supply lines, etc., which takes weeks. The mullahs’ rule does indeed appear rotten, porous, and highly corrupt, as evidenced by the extensive penetration of the Iranian state by Israeli and Western intelligence agencies. The Israelis were not only able to eliminate part of the Iranian leadership during the 2025 bombing campaign; they have now managed once again to take out Supreme Leader Khamenei on the first day. Netanyahu is said to have been shown images of the body shortly after it was recovered.[11]

In Israel’s case, the reasons for war are obvious: Tel Aviv wants the end of the mullah regime out of pure self-preservation. Israel wants the government overthrown, since the “Islamic Republic” of Iran has elevated the destruction of Israel to a state doctrine. Since October 7, 2023 – the mass-murderous terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel, which was cheered by Iran and militarily supported by Hezbollah attacks – regime change appears to have become the guiding principle of Israeli policy toward Iran. Israel wants to prevent, at all costs, a repeat of an attack such as the one carried out by the Iran-backed Hamas. The current right-wing government in Jerusalem would likely favor a reactionary, U.S.-aligned regime under Reza Pahlavi, yet regime change appears to be the top priority – regardless of the succession debate. Israel’s minimum objective, intended to secure the survival of the Jewish state in a hostile region, consists of permanently preventing Iran’s nuclear program.

In the case of the U.S., domestic political reasons are usually emphasized: Trump wants to divert attention from the pedophilia scandal involving members of the U.S. ruling elite. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that the president himself may have molested girls and children. The attack on Venezuela was already interpreted as an attempt by Trump to divert attention, similar to Reagan’s invasion of Grenada in 1983, which was intended to divert attention from the Iran-Contra affair. The military triumph in Caracas also simply led to the fascists in the White House – here, above all, Trump’s close confidant Steven Miller – taking a liking to the use of military force without consequences. They have simply gotten a taste for blood.

Yet at the same time, it is evident that the Trump administration is targeting China’s second “gas station” in Iran. Beijing is (and has been) the most important customer in both Caracas and Tehran. The deployment of the colossal U.S. military machine – following Trump’s dismantling of the remnants of American hegemony – effectively constitutes the last significant lever with which Washington can maintain its global dominance.[12] Precisely because the crisis is also breathing down the Trump administration’s neck, as the dollar increasingly loses its role as the world’s reserve currency and Washington faces mounting budgetary problems. The attacks on oil-producing countries that have broken away from the U.S. orbit also appear intended to consolidate the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency, as the “petro-currency.”

Moreover – and this must not be overlooked in the era of oligarchic brutalization in the U.S.—Trump was encouraged to attack Iran by the Gulf despotisms, which showered his clan with “gifts” and deals worth billions. Saudi Arabia, in particular, pressed Washington in secret talks to carry out the bombing, while officially maintaining a neutral stance.[13] Iran’s attacks against the Gulf states are a direct consequence of this tactical acquiescence and support for the U.S. attack, which would also neutralize a key Shiite rival of the Saudis for the time being. Riyadh hopes to rise to become the leading regional power in the wake of the war.

Outlook and Prospects

Without substantial deployment of ground forces, the bombing campaign against Iran is likely to peter out after a few weeks without bringing about regime change. The regime is ailing; it is corrupt; and it can apparently be easily penetrated by intelligence agencies that can simply buy information. But it still has hundreds of thousands of supporters and fighters under arms, particularly in the militias, who will remain loyal without substantial military pressure for one simple reason: the regime provides them with material support. Their children are not malnourished; they can make ends meet for their families in the midst of a socio-ecological crisis in which this is no longer possible for ever-larger segments of the population.

Consequently, the organizational structures are likely to remain intact despite the barrage of bombs, the chains of command continue to function, and unreliable elements within the repressive apparatus were neutralized anyway during the brutal counterinsurgency at the beginning of the year. The machine guns stand ready in case spontaneous protests flare up again, which could easily be drowned in blood once more. The backbone of the regime is too strong to be broken by airstrikes and demonstrations alone.

There are hardly any significant, powerful opposition groups that could challenge the regime militarily. The People’s Mujahideen, a left-wing Islamist splinter group of Iranian state Shi’ism, resembles a sect with some 3,000 followers that sporadically organizes attacks in Iran.[14] The Shah’s son, Pahlavi, has no significant battle-tested forces at his disposal. What remains are the minorities: the Kurds, through the Iranian successor organization to the dissolved PKK, have significant combat units; separatist aspirations – which could potentially be encouraged by Turkey – exist among the Azeris in northwestern Iran, as well as in Iranian Baluchistan in the southeast of the country.

However, these groups would likely strengthen Iran’s centrifugal forces, fueling instability and state collapse – while the U.S. would prefer to install a stable, U.S.-aligned regime in Iran. Turkey’s initial opposition to an attack on Iran stems precisely from Ankara’s fears that Iranian Kurds might fight for independence or autonomy (Washington’s betrayal of Rojava, in which the Kurds were sacrificed, which was overcome by Ankara’s resistance).[15] This scenario of a renewed wave of state decomposition in the region also seems most likely in the event of an escalation. The country, with a population of 90 million, could disintegrate into a gigantic, second Syria. In this case, however, it would not only be Iran where conflicts could erupt along ethnic or religious lines.

Iraq would also be affected; following the freeze in the Sunni-Shia civil war, it is little more than a hollow shell of a state, where militias effectively hold sway depending on the region. And Shias constitute the majority of Iraq’s population. Shia militias, most of which are backed by Iran, have already threatened attacks against U.S. military bases and other facilities. A resurgence of the civil war seems quite likely in the event of an escalation.[16] The Syrian Islamist regime, which emerged from the Sunni terrorist network Al-Qaeda, is already massing troops along the border with Iraq.[17] Turkish interventions are also conceivable, aimed at occupying the Azerbaijani regions of Iran or attacking the Kurds as part of Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman imperialism.

And finally, the conflict could very quickly trigger global economic upheaval if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz, which could happen simply through the threat of drone or missile strikes – a navy is not necessary for this. This would shut down one of the most important shipping routes for fossil fuels. As is so often the case with Western wars over the world order (Robert Kurz), the war would thus simply become a catalyst for crisis, accelerating the crisis process of capital in fits and starts—both in the region and globally.

I finance my journalistic work largely through donations. If you appreciate my writing, you are welcome to contribute—either via Patreon or Substack.

[1] https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2027654336138924410

[2] https://www.axios.com/2026/02/28/trump-iran-war-israel-off-ramps

[3] https://www.konicz.info/2026/01/28/verrat-aus-prinzip/

[4] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/02/24/reza-pahlavi-iran-trump-00793877

[5] https://apnews.com/article/iran-iraq-kurds-pahlavi-6beae57e9fdc3546a61ec8f1432eef4b

[6] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/02/24/reza-pahlavi-iran-trump-00793877

[7] https://www.konicz.info/2026/01/28/verrat-aus-prinzip/

[8] https://exitinenglish.com/2026/03/19/what-is-crisis-imperialism/

[9] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/15/how-day-zero-water-shortages-in-iran-are-fuelling-protests

[10] https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/507241/Climate-change-significantly-impacts-food-security-in-Iran-expert

[11] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/natenyahu-said-shown-picture-of-khameneis-body-retrieved-from-compound/