Strictly Geopolitical-Wargames Come-Dancing in the Middle East
Iran strikes an empty US base in response to America’s attacks on its empty nuclear facilities. Whereas Israel continues to target starving civilians, children, hospitals, in media.
In my last Substack post, I argued:
If Iran responds (to the US strikes on its nuclear assets) as it did following the murder of Qasim Solimani - which Donald Trump explained to the media was something he was told about in advance, and that Iran deliberately did not harm US targets, but did to save face- then it means this was an escalation, in order to then de-escalate. All parties can walk away saying they have saved face, and move on to something else.
The events since then suggest this is what has happened.
“Israel” attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities and more besides, on the pretext that Iran was weeks away from a nuclear weapon (something they have been saying for 30 years!). Iran responded damaging targets in Tel-Aviv and Haifa in a way that “Israel” has never faced before. The strikes escalated in a way that threatened to destabilise the region further.
“Israel” pleaded with its sponsor, the United States, to intervene and take out Iran’s deeply mined nuclear assets at Fordow. Amerca duly obliged.
Except they did so following a lot of rhetoric allowing Iran to evacuate its nuclear facilities. “Fordow is gone” claimed Trump. “Fordow was empty” countered Iran.
Six missiles. No casualties.
Iran declared it would strike US assets. It informed the US ally Qatar that it would be launching missiles to target the US Al Udaid airbase in Doha. Al Udaid was allegedly evacuated and Qatar was well-prepared to shoot down the missiles.
Six missiles. No casualties.
Everyone’s a winner.
Except the civilians who have died, or who have lost their homes.
Everyone’s a winner.
“Israel” can say its objectives have been achieved.
“Iran” can say they retain their nuclear assets.
“America” can say Iran can return to negotiating.
All of this certainly looks as there is an attempt to de-escalate a situation that “Israel” escalated.
In my last piece I also said:
Trumps’s vision of the Middle East as expressed at the time of the Abraham accords - that all countries would be better off normalising with each other and the Zionist entity; that diplomacy, tourism & trade benefits all; that they achieve a balance of power amongst themselves (though “Israel” would still be the only nuclear power) - and that the Palestinians should just accept whatever they get - be it a pseudo-state or even less than that.
This looks a more realistic possibility - though nothing in today’s Middle East is a foregone conclusion. There are too many variables and risks to predict anything with certainty.
Nonetheless, this is desired America’s trajectory for many reasons.
One commentator has suggested that rapprochement with Iran and Syria - and seeking stability between Pakistan and India - has been about achieving
“a long-stalled infrastructure project meant to bypass China — and put the United States back at the center of a strategic economic corridor stretching from India to Europe. The project is called the India–Middle East–Europe Corridor, or IMEC. Most Americans have never heard of it. It was launched in 2023 at the G20 summit in New Delhi, as a joint initiative among the U.S., India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the European Union. Its goal? To build a modern infrastructure link connecting South Asia to Europe — without passing through Chinese territory or relying on Chinese capital. IMEC’s vision is bold but simple: Indian goods would travel west via rail and ports through the Gulf, across Israel, and on to European markets. Along the way, the corridor would connect not just trade routes, but energy pipelines, digital cables, and logistics hubs. It would be the first serious alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative — a way for the U.S. and its partners to build influence without boots on the ground.”
A hostile Iran, which controls the strategic Straits of Hormuz, is an obstacle to this possible aim.
Trump’s reopening negotiations with Iran via Oman was a first step. But trust is understandably low between the two negotiating parties.
The US has a different goal to “Israel’s” policy towards Iran ie to crush a country that has moved some way to becoming the second nuclear power in the Middle East.
It is to secure its own goals with stability and a balance of power in the region. If. the current administration in Iran does not comply, we are likely to see more assassinations of leading figures.
If this succeeds, the biggest loser will be the people of Palestine - they stand to get nothing from this.
Abdul Wahid has been active in Muslim affairs in the UK for over 25 years. He has been published on the websites of Foreign Policy, Open Democracy, the Times Higher Educational Supplement, and Prospect Magazine. You can follow him on X/Twitter @AbdulWahid_X.