Power Struggle in the US: Iran War Exposes Fractures in the Trump Administrations

The Iran war exposes deep political divisions within US leadership, highlighting internal instability rather than global strength.

Taut Bataut

Key officials pursue conflicting strategies driven by personal power ambitions instead of coherent national interests. This growing internal rivalry is weakening America’s global position and signaling a shift in the balance of power.

Introduction

Neither in Venezuela nor in Iran; political fractures and regime change are only happening in the US these days. The picture that the West is trying to portray is too far from the reality. Always accusing Russians and Chinese of being detrimental to world peace, the West, in particular the US, has strived to attract the world’s attention as the sole bearer of tranquility and harmony. Thanks to the Trump 2.0 administration for completely exposing the Western reality to the international community. Whether it is racism, white supremacy, domestic instability, administrative differences, or the firing of top military personnel, the US is nowadays grappling with internal fractures with an ever-increasing external burden on its political stature. The ongoing war against Iran in the Middle East has exposed the Western propaganda and clarified that the actual power struggle is going on in America with top political authorities upholding contrasting viewpoints over the global situation.

Selling the War to the Public

The Iran war has not only exposed the strategic weakness of the so-called superpower but also put forward the political clash going on in the domestic circles of the US

Since the inception of the war against Iran this year, the US has been selling its narrative of destroying and obliterating the Iranian threat from scratch. President Trump has claimed multiple times growing divisions in the Iranian regime. On one occasion, he said that Iran was finding it difficult to determine who would be their leader. They don’t seem to know, with the infighting being experienced between the hardliners who have been losing terribly on the battlegrounds and the moderates, who aren’t even moderate. Likewise, to cover up the US failure in Iran, President Trump recently noted that the regime change has already occurred in Iran and the new leaders are more optimistic as compared to their predecessors. Now, all this is being done to manipulate the public opinion and to portray to the world that it’s a just war and the US is accomplishing it successfully. It’s not just Iran. The US has always accused its rivals with such bogus claims, which have no connection to reality.

Divisions in the White House

The four macho men in the White House — President Trump, VP Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and War Secretary Hegseth — have conflicting views regarding the war in Iran. Although all of them have tried their best to show solidarity with each other, the fractures are so intense that they can’t be hidden. Even the most vocal person in the US, President Trump, had accepted the fact that they had some differences. Donald Trump has a transactional mindset and prefers only the ‘Yes’ men in his cabinet. He was the one who took the US out of the JCPOA deal with Iran in 2017. And now this time, he is continuing its legacy of supporting Israel at the cost of American interests. According to President Trump, the US military is doing a very great job, inflicting Iran with heavy blows. It’s like Trump is living in his idealism, where everything the US does will go right.

The Vice President, JD Vance, on the other hand, has been trying his best to align his thoughts with President Trump, but all in vain. Trump also noted that there were some philosophical differences between him and VP J.D. Vance regarding their initial views on the war with Iran. He explained, “I think he was a little less excited about going to war, but he was quite excited. I think that it was just something we had to do.” Moreover, Vance is the only person in the Trump administration who has overtly criticized Israel on several matters. On the issue of West Bank occupation by Israel, Vance noted, “If it was a political stunt, it was a very stupid political stunt, and I, personally, take some insult to it.”

Moreover, it’s Vance who, up to date, does not support any long-term military engagement with Iran. According to official reports, Vance has questioned the Pentagon’s exaggerated claims of victory in Iran and neglected the idea that the US weapons stockpiles are unlimited. Now accusing the Pentagon means indirectly striking Pete Hegseth. Thus, not only with Trump, Vance shares a conflictual viewpoint with Hegseth, too. While the state secretary Marco Rubio has also been at odds with Pete Hegseth. Rubio, the Trump administration’s leading diplomat, is hesitant to bring the United States into another prolonged foreign war, while Hegseth favors deploying soldiers on the ground.

What’s Driving the Internal Clash?

One can argue that in political setups, differences often occur. But this case is entirely different. Trump, Rubio, and Hegseth — all three are pro-Israeli elements, while Vance is somewhat a moderate figure. Despite having full support from Israel, these officials have contrasting views over the Iran war. This brings us to a conclusion that it’s not about who is supporting the Israeli mission or not, but rather it’s about who will lead the Republican Party next after Donald Trump. It’s the actual power struggle. As the public opinion in the US is going against the war in Iran, Vance is taking advantage of it. He is going with the public narrative to secure his position in the near future. Likewise, Rubio is trying to balance between public opinion and the Israeli lobby to create a win-win situation for him to surpass that of Vance. Hegseth is portraying himself to be the most hawkish figure in the White House to remain in power through Israeli support in one form or another.

Conclusion

The Iran war has not only exposed the strategic weakness of the so-called superpower but also put forward the political clash going on in the domestic circles of the US. The one that has always tried to create internal and external chaos for its rivals is now facing a serious backlash. The domestic protests are at their peak. Public resentment is increasing at an alarming rate. Racist factions are amplifying their voices. These are all the signs of power transition and the change in the world order. It is now quite evident that the upcoming world order — a multipolar one — has no room for American dictation, and power would reside in the East. Yes, the political clash is happening, and regime change is near. But not in Iran; it’s the US itself this time.

Taut Bataut is a researcher and writer that publishes on South Asian geopolitics

The Architect of Deception: Profile of the Indicted War Criminal Benjamin Netanyahu

Muslim Mahmood

Benjamin Mileikowsky (Netanyahu) - Image ChatGPT

In the volatile landscape of West Asia, few figures loom as large or as controversially as Benjamin Netanyahu.

Often portrayed as the ultimate political survivor, his decades-long career is defined by a mastery of rhetoric, a deep-seated belief in revisionist ideology, and a series of strategic maneuvers designed to maintain power amidst mounting legal and international pressure.

This investigation delves into the man behind the carefully curated image, examining how his ancestral roots, his commitment to the “Greater Israel” project, and his ongoing legal battles have shaped the trajectory of the zionist entity.

From Mileikowsky to Netanyahu: The Politics of Reinvention

Netanyahu’s is not merely a personal matter but a foundational element of his political persona.

Born Benjamin Mileikowsky, his family name was changed to Netanyahu by his father, Benzion Netanyahu, after the family migrated from Poland to the territory that would become the modern state of Israel.

This change was far from incidental; it was a symbolic act of reinvention common among early zionist settlers who sought to shed their European past and adopt a more “Israeli” and nationalistic identity.

Benzion Netanyahu, a prominent secular Jew and a historian born in Warsaw, was a staunch Revisionist Zionist.

His worldview, shaped by the belief that the Jewish people were destined for eternal conflict, profoundly influenced his son’s political philosophy.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s upbringing also included significant time spent in Philadelphia, where he was exposed to the burgeoning neoconservative movement.

He attended school alongside figures who would later become the architects of US interventionist policies in West Asia, such as those involved with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Analysts suggest that this blend of Revisionist Zionism and American Neoconservatism created a unique political hybrid.

The name Netanyahu—meaning “God has given”—became a brand synonymous with a defiant, strategic, and often uncompromising vision of the state’s security and expansion.

For Netanyahu, power is built on perception, and his ability to turn accusations of corruption into “patriotic badges of honor” has been a hallmark of his survival.

The ‘Greater Israel’ Project: From Fringe to Mainstream

Central to Netanyahu’s long-term strategy is the concept of “Greater Israel” (Eretz Yisrael Hashlema).

This expansionist ideology seeks to extend the state far beyond its current borders, often invoking biblical prophecies that describe a land stretching from the “brook of Egypt” to the Euphrates River.

Historically, this vision was a fringe settler fantasy advocated by people like Theodore Herzl and Zev Jabotinsky.

However, Netanyahu has moved it into the political mainstream.

In an interview in August 2025, Netanyahu explicitly stated his connection to the “Greater Israel” idea, describing it as a “historic and spiritual mission”.

This vision is not merely theoretical; it is actively pursued by a web of settler movements that believe the state’s borders are not fixed and must expand to ensure security.

These movements use the Hebrew concept of lehitnahel balevavot—“to settle the hearts”—to convince the public that expansion and settlement are synonymous with safety, despite empirical evidence suggesting that such policies lead to perpetual warfare.

The “Greater Israel” project encompasses not only the West Bank and Gaza but also potential claims to parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt.

This maximalist plan aligns with the neo-cons’ 1996 “Clean Break” memo, which advised Netanyahu on remaking the regional balance of power in West Asia by eliminating strategic threats and destabilizing rival governments.

Critics argue that Netanyahu’s persistent warnings about Iran’s nuclear program—dating back to 1996—serve as a justification for this regional dominance, mirroring the rhetoric used to initiate the Iraq War.

Legal Challenges as Catalyst for Strategy

The trajectory of Netanyahu’s recent political maneuvers cannot be separated from the serious legal challenges he faces both at home (corruption charges) and abroad.

In November 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Netanyahu uses “gimmicks” and military escalations to divert public attention from these crimes and delay his day of reckoning.

His political survival has become inextricably linked to the continuation of conflict.

By prolonging wars in Gaza and Lebanon, Netanyahu effectively postpones his trials and avoids a potential prison cell confinement.

This “survival-at-all-costs” instinct has led to what observers describe as a “forever war” strategy.

On the global stage, this has caused a significant collapse in support for the zionist entity.

Some polls indicate that it has become one of the least popular countries in the world, falling below even North Korea and Afghanistan in public perception.

Domestically, Netanyahu has faced accusations of manipulating the state’s legal system and media to shield himself.

When confronted with protests or international pressure, his rhetoric often pivots to claims of “anti-Semitism” or “political witch hunts”.

Furthermore, his use of religious imagery, such as the biblical story of Amalek, has been interpreted as a way to justify total destruction and the “massacre of innocent people” under the guise of a divine mandate.

The Eighth Front: War on Social Media

A critical, yet often overlooked, aspect of Netanyahu’s strategy is what he calls the “eighth front” of war: the battle for public opinion on social media.

Netanyahu has admitted that the state is losing this “social media war,” which he attributes to a concerted effort by other countries to “vilify Israel”.

He claims that the rise of negative sentiment is a result of manipulated algorithms and bot armies rather than an organic reaction to the illegal entity’s military aggressions.

However, critics point out the irony in these claims, noting that zionist Israel itself spends millions on digital propaganda and “bot armies” to flood online platforms with pro-regime sentiment.

Independent data shows a stark generational divide, particularly in the United States, where younger people across the political spectrum are increasingly skeptical of Netanyahu’s narratives.

This loss of confidence is not limited to youth; even among older demographics, there is a growing belief that Netanyahu’s actions are incompatible with the values of a liberal democracy.

His response to this reputational harm has been to allege that the images of carnage and destruction emerging from conflict zones are fake or manipulated, despite numerous verified reports of humanitarian abuses, including attacks on hospitals, schools, and aid workers.

This refusal to acknowledge tactical or strategic mistakes further fuels the perception of him as an “architect of deception”.

A Legacy of Deception and Division

Netanyahu’s political identity is a complex tapestry of ancestral revisionism, messianic territorial ambition, and a desperate struggle for legal immunity.

By reinventing his name and his country’s narrative, he has managed to maintain a grip on power for decades.

Yet, the cost of this survival is an entity increasingly isolated on the world stage and a region—West Asia—mired in seemingly endless conflict.

As he continues to push the “Greater Israel” agenda and navigate his legal crises, the distinction between the state’s interests and Netanyahu’s personal survival continues to blur.

The “Architect of Deception” remains a figure who thrives on chaos, utilizing a mix of neoconservative strategy and ancient rhetoric to maintain his position, even as the global consensus turns against his vision.

For the public, the challenge remains to look past the “carefully maintained illusion” and understand the underlying causes of the ongoing instability in the entity he leads.

Benjamin MileikowskyIndicted war criminalGreater Israelzionist war crimesICCNeo-consProject for the New American CenturyWest Asia

European Interests Sacrificed to Trump’s Policies

SCFR Online – Report: Energy security is the vital artery of Europe's political economy, and any disruption to it challenges the continent's resilience. Within the new architecture of energy security, the Middle East remains the gravitational center of supply; however, the overlooked element is Iran's pivotal role as either a guarantor of stability or a source of disruption.

Tehran not only exercises dominion over the Strait of Hormuz but also commands the region’s strategic depth. Consequently, Europe’s energy security and the economic stability of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are inextricably linked to avoiding tensions with Iran.

This article, through an examination of the latest strategic analyses on this subject, elucidates why disregarding Iran constitutes economic self-destruction for Europe and a source of instability for the region, and why Tehran represents the vital artery of this equation.

In the Energy Dimension: Although Europe has reduced its dependence on Russian gas, this shift in consumption has not eliminated risks for the continent; rather, these risks have been reconfigured.

A report by the Atlantic Council think tank, titled “The Eastern Mediterranean Cannot Replace Russian or Persian Gulf Gas,” explicitly states that Eastern Mediterranean gas “cannot replace Russian gas at scale. Its value lies in enabling flexibility, diversification, and responsiveness during periods of market stress.”

This implies that Europe remains dependent on the Persian Gulf for its baseline energy supply and cannot fully rely on alternative options.

A report by the German Council on Foreign Relations, titled “Europe in the Middle East Dilemma,” presents alarming statistics: “Approximately one-fifth of global oil consumption—roughly 20 million barrels per day—plus a significant share of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade, transits the Strait of Hormuz.”

As recent developments in the war launched by the United States and the Zionist regime against Iran have demonstrated, any tension with Iran that leads to disruption in Hormuz would directly obstruct Europe’s respiratory artery. Therefore, Iran, as an energy chokepoint, possesses leverage extending beyond military power, placing European continental security under its influence, with no alternative route to circumvent this geopolitical reality.

From the Perspective of International Economics: Stability in the Persian Gulf states is also unattainable without engagement with Iran. The aggressive war waged by the United States and the Zionist regime has imposed high costs on the economies of these countries, placing them in a difficult position.

A Foreign Policy In Focus report titled “GCC Economies Face War Challenges,” quoting Sheik Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani, notes that the Gulf Cooperation Council “possesses a radical, unconventional, and highly effective tool for imposing an end to hostilities: the collective and complete halt of all oil and gas exports.”

This indicates that even traditional US allies are wary of the costs of war and that their interests hinge upon peace.

Furthermore, a report by the Chatham House think tank, titled “What Do Houthi Attacks on Israel Mean for the Iran War?”, warns that Iran’s strategy of activating the Axis of Resistance carries the risk of expanding a conflict that is already destabilizing. This will have significant implications for regional stability, global trade, and humanitarian conditions.”

This signifies that Iran possesses the capacity to raise the costs of war for critical economic and military infrastructure across the Persian Gulf region. Therefore, the economic stability of Saudi Arabia and the UAE hinges on managing tensions with Tehran rather than confronting them, and any war would entail devastating consequences for the entire region.

Europe’s Structural Weakness and Security Dependence: Amidst these dynamics, Europe has developed structural weaknesses and a security dependence on the United States that have diminished its role in international relations. The report “Europe in the Middle East Dilemma” explicitly states: “Europe acts neither as a unified peace actor nor as a pole of power counterbalancing the United States. The Union primarily functions as a security-oriented crisis manager.”

Through unilateral actions, the United States has kept Europe in a state of ambiguity and sacrificed its interests. The report emphasizes that following US actions in Venezuela and West Asia, “discontent regarding unilateral military actions and their consequences for Europe is growing.”

This dependence has diminished Europe’s role on the international stage and transformed it into a follower of Washington’s policies. This situation has yielded nothing but rising inflation and public debt for European nations.

Europe now faces the risk of escalating regional conflict and tension, rising energy prices, and cyberattacks against its critical infrastructure, all of which threaten its economic resilience and demonstrate that blind adherence to US policies comes at a steep cost.

Europe’s Remaining Leverage: Nevertheless, Europe still possesses leverage to prevent the escalation of this all-out war, which could benefit both regional stability and Iran. Through active diplomacy and the utilization of energy leverage, Europe could alter the equation and persuade the United States to retreat.

As noted in the article “GCC Economies Face War Challenges,” Gulf countries are currently “diversifying their economic and defense relations and moving away from exclusive reliance on the United States.” By aligning with this trend and recognizing Iran’s role, Europe could prevent the region from sinking into an endless quagmire of war while safeguarding its own interests.

The article “Europe in the Middle East Dilemma” suggests that European policy should “focus on containing conflict escalation and securing the necessary economic prerequisites for European national economies.”

This implies that Europe’s interests necessitate pursuing de-escalation with Iran rather than aligning with the United States. Iran is the region’s vital artery, and any attempt to exclude it from energy security equations is doomed to failure.

Conclusion: Ultimately, sustainable security for Europe and the Persian Gulf lies not under the shadow of sanctions and war, but in accepting geopolitical realities and engaging constructively with Iran as the region’s dominant power—a reality Europe must acknowledge.

The Global Energy Shock Situation and Future Scenarios

SCFR Online – Opinion: Only one month after the beginning of the Ramadan War, maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz decreased dramatically, with Bloomberg announcing a reduction of 103 vessels; Brent oil prices rose by more than 50 percent, and gasoline prices in the United States increased by 31.4 percent. Additionally, benchmark gas prices in Europe showed a 73.4 percent increase.

Reza Majidzadeh – Development Affairs Expert

While the outlook for supply shortages of materials and energy from the Strait of Hormuz has become highly concerning, the issue of oil remains of greater importance for its importers, to the extent that Citigroup assesses the current oil crisis as much more severe than the crisis of the early 1970s. Citigroup has outlined two scenarios of $120 and $150 per barrel for Brent oil in May, which would mean the entrapment of global economies in a stagflationary super-recession. Under such circumstances, several important questions arise, including: If the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, which countries will find the fastest alternative routes for oil imports? Can the world’s strategic oil reserves prevent a global crisis, or merely delay it?

In the current international system, classical elements of geographically-focused politics—the distinction between continental and maritime powers, the strategic importance of Eurasia in general and chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz in particular, and raw material supply chains—have regained significance. In such a context, the concept of securitization indicates how security risks are often appropriated for particular interests or even discursively portrayed as threats to legitimize extraordinary measures. For example, the United States’ grand strategy in West Asia revolves around “the discursive identification and positioning of the Persian Gulf as an unreliable yet pivotal geographically-focused economic space,” and this constant imaging of the region as central to effective functioning and regulating the global political economy legitimizes the strategic argument for the necessity of military intervention. Based on such a perspective, the scenario of tension in the Persian Gulf, whether in the form of conflict or blockade, currently remains in force.

However, within this existing context and based on International Energy Agency statistics, as of December 2025, China held nearly 1,400 million barrels of oil, the United States approximately 410 million barrels, Japan over 260 million barrels, OECD member countries about 180 million barrels, South Korea nearly 80 million barrels, and India more than 20 million barrels in strategic oil reserves. However, within just one week, U.S. strategic reserves decreased by 7 million barrels. If we take Goldman Sachs’ estimate of a 14.5 million barrel per day reduction in Persian Gulf crude oil production (i.e., 1.5 times the demand reduction during the COVID period) as our basis, this means that within just 30 days, assuming current conditions continue, 435 million fewer barrels of crude oil would be exported from the Persian Gulf—which would constitute a real and severe crisis for Japan, OECD economies, South Korea, and India.

Although during the height of the Ramadan War and the conflicts of the ceasefire period, Russia found the opportunity to sell its oil, it remains to be seen under two extreme scenarios—permanent end of conflict and agreement versus intense conflict—which economies can endure and which will become entangled in stagflation.

The Ramadan War caused Russia’s revenues to double during April. Southeast Asian countries, including Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, have also turned toward Russia to avoid the consequences of supply shortages from the Persian Gulf. However, should the scenario of renewed war occur, perhaps only Asian countries could rely on Russian oil.

Ukraine’s attack on Russian oil facilities aimed to send the signal that Ukraine would not tolerate Russia’s revenue-generating opportunities, and consequently, European countries face energy shortage risks and higher risks. U.S. oil producers also refused Trump’s request to increase strategic reserves, and this situation will make matters more difficult for Europe.

Consequently, it can be said that European countries have the greatest vulnerability regarding the scenario of renewed war and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. The continuation of the Ukraine war has also imposed significant financial and economic pressure on these economies, and in the event of a renewed war scenario, they would face a widespread crisis.

This text was translated using artificial intelligence and may contain errors. If you notice a clear error that makes the text incomprehensible, please inform the website editors.

Iran’s Success in the Narrative Battle in Cyberspace

SCFR Online – Opinion: In the war between Iran and the United States, the main battlefield was not defined solely in the military domain; rather, the battle of narratives in cyberspace—particularly through memes—reached a decisive level.

Hossein Mohammadnezhad – Cultural Affairs Expert

From the Battlefield to the Field of Meaning: The Transformation of Warfare’s Nature

Recent developments in international conflicts demonstrate that war is no longer defined merely in the hard, military domain but increasingly unfolds in the cognitive and perceptual sphere. Within this framework, the Iran-U.S. conflict should be regarded as a prominent example of a “battle of narratives,” in which controlling the minds and perceptions of public opinion has become as significant as dominating the military battlefield.

Analyses published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute clearly indicate that Iran has performed beyond expectations in this domain, succeeding in disseminating its narratives on a broad scale by utilizing simple yet effective tools. This transformation reflects a shift in the nature of power within the international system, wherein the ability to shape perceptions has become a vital source of power.

Within this framework, memes—as seemingly simple yet profoundly impactful tools—have become one of the most important instruments of cognitive warfare. These tools, by combining humor, symbolism, and condensed messages, are capable of conveying complex political concepts in a manner that is comprehensible and shareable for wide audiences.

Meme-Making as a Tool of Public Diplomacy

One notable feature of this battle has been the active role of official institutions, particularly Iranian embassies, in producing and disseminating memes. This approach signifies an important transformation in public diplomacy, wherein the boundary between formal and informal communication has been largely erased.

The memes produced—particularly those designed using Lego characters—have been able to rapidly go viral in cyberspace and attract the attention of global audiences. These memes, by leveraging the universal language of humor and imagery, have conveyed political messages in a manner that is not only comprehensible but also engaging and shareable.

Unlike traditional approaches to public diplomacy that rely on official statements and diplomatic speeches, this form of communication engages directly with the general public and consequently achieves greater impact. This transformation indicates that in the age of social media, soft power is no longer produced solely through formal institutions but is shaped through interaction with digital culture.

Superiority in the Battle of Narratives: Why Iran Performed More Successfully

Analysis of both sides’ performance in this battle indicates that Iran has been able to leverage several key advantages: First, a precise understanding of the logic of cyberspace. While many Western actors still rely on traditional communication patterns, Iran has succeeded in transmitting its messages more effectively by utilizing informal and creative formats.

Second, the use of simple yet effective narratives. Memes, by reducing political complexities to images and short messages, enable the rapid and widespread transmission of narratives. This feature is particularly significant in conditions where audience attention is limited.

Third, the utilization of humor and satire, which can convey political messages without triggering psychological resistance in the audience. This approach has enabled Iran to maintain an effective presence even in media environments traditionally dominated by the West.

In contrast, the United States and its allies have, in many instances, been unable to compete effectively with this form of communication. Dependence on formal frameworks and institutional constraints has prevented these actors from responding to developments in cyberspace with the necessary speed and flexibility.

Geopolitical Consequences: From Hard Power to Perceptual Power

Superiority in the battle of narratives is not merely a media success but carries broad geopolitical consequences. In a world where public opinion plays an increasingly significant role in shaping foreign policy, the ability to influence such opinion has become a strategic tool.

Viral memes—particularly those produced by official institutions—can directly affect public perception of a conflict and, consequently, alter the political decision-making environment. This matter gains particular significance in democratic societies where politicians are accountable to public opinion. Within this framework, the battle of narratives must be considered an inseparable component of modern warfare. This battle not only influences the legitimacy of military actions but can also affect the ultimate outcomes of a conflict.

Iran’s performance in this domain demonstrates a profound understanding of transformations in the communication sphere and intelligent utilization thereof. This experience contains an important lesson for other actors as well: in the digital age, neglecting the battle of narratives can lead to the loss of strategic superiority.

This text was translated using artificial intelligence and may contain errors. If you notice a clear error that makes the text incomprehensible, please inform the website editors.

Challenging US Capabilities in Ensuring Security in the Persian Gulf

SCFR Online – Interview: The Ramadan War has become one of the most significant military developments in recent years in the region and even globally. The Islamic Republic of Iran, through the deployment of a complex and intelligent strategy, has severely called into question the US military presence in the region.

Hamidreza Gholamzadeh, an expert on US affairs, in an interview with the SCFR Online website, analyzing Iran’s strategy, emphasized that in this war, Iran has not only exposed the United States’ unreliability in ensuring regional security but has also inflicted heavy blows on the United States’ military infrastructure.

Targeting US Bases in the Region

Gholamzadeh, emphasizing that Iran has focused its efforts in the Ramadan War on confronting the United States and reducing its military maneuverability in the region, added: “In this war, Iran concentrated its major attacks on US bases in the region, as these bases play a crucial role in executing US military operations against Iran.”

This expert on US affairs, referring to Iran’s precise missile and drone attacks on American bases, stated: “These strikes have not only caused serious damage to US military equipment but have also rendered some of these bases inoperable.”

Gholamzadeh notes that these attacks have significantly reduced the pace of US military operations in the region, compelling the United States to adopt new strategies to compensate for these shortcomings.

According to him, one such strategy involved utilizing US aircraft carriers for fighter jet operations; however, even these carriers sustained damage following encounters with Iranian attacks and were forced to depart the region.

Gholamzadeh, stating that another aspect of Iran’s impact in this war has been strikes against US logistical infrastructure, noted: “Iran succeeded in targeting American refueling tankers in the region, an action that disrupted refueling operations for US fighter jets.”

He elaborated: “To compensate for these shortages, the United States was compelled to organize refueling operations from Eastern European countries and the occupied territories, a measure that significantly increased costs and further reduced the pace of US military operations.”

Iran’s Heavy Blows Against the United States

This expert on US affairs emphasized: “Iran has managed, through its intelligent and precise attacks, to damage vital US interests in the region and increase the costs of war for this country. From a military perspective, these Iranian maneuvers have created new threats for the United States and demonstrated that even its extensive military presence in the region cannot prevent the impact of Iranian attacks.”

Gholamzadeh also referred to the human dimension of the Ramadan War, stating that in addition to the damage inflicted on US military equipment, Iran succeeded in delivering heavy blows to this country’s human resources.

He clarified: “In this war, Iran targeted not only US military bases but also gathering points for American forces outside military installations, such as hotels and other locations. These strikes have inflicted considerable human resource casualties on the United States in the region.”

He added: “This aspect of Iran’s strategy demonstrates that warfare is not limited solely to confronting military equipment but also pays special attention to degrading the enemy’s human resources and strategic capacity. These attacks placed the Americans in a defensive position, compelling them to reconsider their regional strategies and preventing them from continuing their operations as before.”

Supra-Military Achievements

Gholamzadeh noted: “One of the significant achievements of Iran’s strategy has been its strategic impact on the credibility and legitimacy of US military bases in the region.”

He explained: “Iran’s attacks led some regional countries to conclude that when US bases are unable even to ensure their own security, they contribute to increased insecurity in the region. In this process, certain regional countries, particularly in the Persian Gulf, gradually realized that these bases cannot fulfill the protective role claimed by the United States and have, in fact, become sources of security crises in the region.”

He added, “In light of these developments, several countries in the region have concluded that they must reduce their dependence on the US military presence. In this regard, Qatar, in particular, has demonstrated a gradual distancing from US support and is pursuing more independent approaches to regional security. However, other countries such as the United Arab Emirates remain loyal to US policies and seek to leverage American military support to advance their own regional interests.”

Gholamzadeh, noting that Iran is pursuing political and diplomatic strategies to encourage Arab countries toward dismantling US bases in the region, stated: “Iran will strive to convince regional Arab states that US bases not only fail to contribute to their security but have transformed into a threat to regional stability.”

This expert on US affairs referred to Washington’s efforts to maintain its bases in the region, stating: “Conversely, the United States continues to insist on its regional presence and, by extracting financial costs from Arab countries, seeks to preserve its bases in the region.”

He added: “The United States aims also to recover the costs of reconstructing its bases from Arab countries, again under the pretext that these bases protect them against Iran, and within this framework, the US military presence remains essential.”

Gholamzadeh, emphasizing that Iran’s strategy in the Ramadan War represents a strategic shift in regional policies, stated: “Regional countries must distinguish between on-the-ground realities and the political propaganda and security fantasies promoted by the United States.”

Venezuela After the Abduction of Maduro; Is the International Order on the Verge of Collapse?

SCFR Online – Interview: Three months have passed since the operation by US special forces in Caracas – an operation in which Nicolás Maduro, the President of Venezuela, was abducted and transferred to New York. To examine the legal, political, and economic dimensions of this unprecedented event and its consequences, we have interviewed Soroosh Salami, an expert on Latin American affairs.

Question: From the perspective of international law, how can the US action in abducting Maduro be characterized?

Answer: From three independent angles, this action was completely illegal. First, deploying military forces into the territory of a sovereign state without authorization from the Security Council or the consent of the host government is a clear instance of “aggression” under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The US argument that this was an “enforcement of domestic law” is legally untenable. The International Court of Justice, in the Nicaragua v. United States case (1986), clearly emphasized that there is no exception for the unilateral enforcement of domestic laws in the territory of another state.

Second, at the time of his abduction, Maduro was the sitting president. Under customary international law and the Hague Court’s ruling in the Arrest Warrant case (DRC v. Belgium, 2002), heads of state enjoy absolute immunity. This immunity persists even for accusations of international crimes as long as the individual remains in office.

Third, the exercise of executive jurisdiction – meaning arrest – on the territory of another state is completely prohibited. The abduction of Eichmann by the Mossad in Argentina (1960), which was met with global condemnation, demonstrates that even for those accused of crimes against humanity, unilateral action is impermissible. The US is effectively dismantling the post-World War II order.

Question: The Americans claim Maduro is accused of drug trafficking to the US. Is that justification unacceptable as well?

Answer: This justification is legally absurd. No matter how serious the drug trafficking charges, they do not authorize a violation of a state’s sovereignty and the abduction of its president. If we accept this logic, then any powerful country could attack the territory of other states by leveling accusations against their leaders. This would be a return to the “right of the strongest sovereign” – a principle the international community abandoned after two world wars. In the words of some experts, we are witnessing a “dangerous departure from a rule-based order toward a system based on force.”

Question: Many believe the US motive goes beyond legal issues and their claimed “war on drugs.” What is your view?

Answer: Exactly. Let’s be honest. Venezuela sits on the world’s largest proven oil reserves. It also contains the Orinoco Mining Arc, which is full of gold, diamonds, bauxite, nickel, and most importantly, coltan – the raw material for mobile phone, laptop, and electric vehicle batteries, upon which the 21st-century economy depends.

Question: In other words, you are saying the US directly intends to plunder these resources?

Answer: Not just intends – it is practically implementing a plunder operation. Let me clarify the three layers of this game for you:

Layer one, blockage and extortion: Since 2018, the Bank of England has blocked approximately $3 billion of Venezuela’s gold. What was the pretext? The non-recognition of the Maduro government. After Maduro’s abduction, the US Secretary of the Interior (Homeland Security) traveled directly to Caracas and, by promising sanctions relief in exchange for US companies’ access to gold mines, effectively engaged in “economic extortion.”

Layer two, changing laws: Only three months after the coup, the Venezuelan parliament, under pressure from Washington, passed a new mining law opening the mining sector to private investment. Doug Burgum, the US Secretary of the Interior (Homeland Security), upon returning from Caracas, proudly stated: “We’re excited to bring gold home to America.”

Layer three, replicating the Colombia model: And here we reach the painful point of the matter.

Question: You are referring to Plan Colombia?

Answer: Yes. Since 2000, the US has invested over $10 billion in the framework of “Plan Colombia,” ostensibly to combat drugs and rebuild institutions. What was the result? Armed groups like the ELN and FARC dominate mining regions, and thousands of social leaders and environmental activists who opposed extraction by foreign companies have been assassinated. Now, the exact same model is being implemented in Venezuela: first destabilization, then military intervention, then legal changes, and finally resource plunder with the cooperation of influential local elements.

Question: The Wall Street Journal article you also mentioned speaks of a “Plan Venezuela” with a budget of $15-20 billion over a decade. In your view, will this money truly be used for Venezuela’s reconstruction?

Answer: We must learn from Colombia’s experience. The US claims it will use Venezuela’s own resources – for example, $5 billion of the country’s funds at the IMF and $4.8 billion of gold blocked in England. But this money belongs to the Venezuelan people themselves! This is like someone locking your house and then saying, “If you cooperate with me, I will give you back part of your own house.” This is extortion on a national scale.

Question: If the international community remains passive, what is the outlook for Venezuela?

Answer: Very dark. Let me outline three timeframes:

In the short term (next 6 months to 2 years): Venezuela will become a battleground for armed groups. The ELN and remnants of the FARC, who already control mining areas, will fill the power vacuum. Competition between these groups and US-affiliated forces over gold and coltan mines will lead to widespread bloodshed.

In the medium term (2 to 5 years): The foundations of international law will collapse. The US success in violating Venezuela’s sovereignty without an effective response will set a precedent that other major powers will also exploit. Why couldn’t China attack Taiwan under the pretext of fighting terrorism? Why couldn’t Russia attack Baltic states under the pretext of human rights violations? The gates of hell will open.

In the long term (5 to 10 years): Venezuela will become a “second Colombia” – a country experiencing decades of civil war, drug trafficking, and resource plunder. The difference is that Venezuela, due to its coltan reserves, is a larger and more strategic prey. Several generations in Venezuela will live in poverty and violence, while their country’s resources are transferred to foreign companies.

Question: What reaction is expected from the international community?

Answer: First, the UN Security Council must condemn this action as “aggression” and adopt a resolution to return Maduro and release Venezuela’s blocked assets. Second, the International Criminal Court must open a case to investigate the “crime of aggression” by US officials. Third, Latin American countries must form a united front to defend the principle of sovereignty.

Question: But are such actions practical, given the US veto in the Security Council?

Answer: The reality is bitter. But silence is even more catastrophic. If the international community, even through other bodies like the UN General Assembly or the Organization of American States, does not react decisively, the message will be: “Might has replaced law.” Venezuela will not be the first or last victim.

Venezuelans have the right to determine their own destiny and the fate of their country’s resources, not Washington. Abducting a president, stealing a country’s gold and coltan, and imposing war and instability under the pretext of a “war on drugs” – all of these are crimes. History will judge, but the Venezuelan people will pay the price.