Backgrounds of the War on Iran and Its Geostrategic and Political Dimensions

In an attempt to understand the ongoing war between Iran on one side, and Washington and Israel, along with their allies, on the other side, we must return to the beginnings. In this context, we question: why did Washington not intervene in 1979 to protect its "secular" strategic ally, Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and prevent the Islamic Khomeini group from seizing power, especially since Khomeini was residing in France and managing affairs from there?

And why did Washington and the West in general, and Israel, remain silent for 47 years while the "Iranian clerics" repeatedly declared that America is the "Great Satan," threatening to eradicate Israel, and developing their conventional and unconventional military systems, including uranium enrichment?

Why did Washington remain silent about the developing trade and economic relations between Iran and Gulf countries, especially the UAE? And why did it ignore the reconciliation between Tehran and Riyadh under Beijing's sponsorship on March 10, 2023? Why did it also stay silent about the Houthis (Iran's allies) targeting the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Washington's strategic ally) with missiles, allowing it to become embroiled in a war of attrition in Yemen?

The answer to all these questions lies in the current state of the Arab world and the Middle East after the Khomeini revolution and its role in it, including, for example:

1. The sectarian conflicts between Shiites and Sunnis would not have ignited, rekindling past grievances.

2. The weakening of Iraq and then its American occupation, destroying its national unity.

3. The incitement of civil war in Yemen and its division.

4. The disruption of political life in Lebanon.

5. The violation of Syrian territories.

6. Deepening the Palestinian divide.

7. Enhancing American military presence in the Gulf and the region at large.

8. America's draining of Gulf States and blackmailing them under the pretext of protecting them from the "Iranian threat."

All of these strategic gains are more important to America and Israel than their losses in the wars they waged against Iran.

In the "Great Game" of nations and its strategic calculations, not all objectives are revealed, which complicates matters and confuses ordinary citizens in their attempts to judge the nature of relationships between countries and understand them, whether they are friendly or antagonistic.

It is undeniable that the Iranian people revolted against the Shah's regime, and Washington could have helped the Shah, but what happened in Iran in 1979 coincided with the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, the Islamic revolution against the Moscow-aligned regime in 1978, and Washington's support for the "Afghan Mujahideen" to fight the Russians and support Al-Qaeda.

All of this occurred because Washington realized the importance of having extremist Islamic or sectarian forces to counter the influence and expansion of communism in the region, utilizing political Islam to create internal strife and conflicts that justify more Western intervention in a region that possesses the largest reserves of oil and gas, in addition to its strategic location.

This led to a convergence of interests between the Iranian Islamic revolution and the strategic interests of Washington and the West—without necessarily any prior agreement or understanding—where each party, despite the apparent hostility between them, tried to exploit this point of convergence to achieve its strategic interests through different tactics, which continued until Washington and Israel deemed it necessary to limit Iran's functional role in the region without completely overthrowing the regime.

Iran understood that the chaos and sectarian conflicts its policies were creating in Arab countries served the interests of Washington and Israel. However, at the same time, it exploited this role to develop its military and technological capabilities and enhance its influence in the region, especially in the Gulf.
In this conflict between the two sides, which sometimes reaches the level of actual war as is currently happening, both sides recognize that Iran's goal is not to destroy Israel or end its existence as it claims; because they know that this is unattainable, given that Israel is a nuclear state and will resort to nuclear weapons if it feels threatened, and Iran also knows that Washington and the West will not allow Israel to be defeated to the point of extinction. It is also not in the interest of Washington and Tel Aviv to completely overthrow the Iranian regime but rather to subdue it, weaken it, and spread chaos within it and its surroundings, as they need it as a banner for the Shiite sect that competes with Sunni Islam and thus continue the sectarian division of Arab and Islamic societies, especially since it has been established that sectarian religious animosity and conflict are more bloody than traditional national and ideological conflicts.

Accordingly, the conflict has a strategic dimension; for Washington, it represents dominance over the Middle East for various reasons, including the region's location and wealth in oil and gas, strengthening its position in the struggle with China, as well as hidden reasons with a religious dimension related to Israel. For Iran, it is about restoring its Persian glory, even through sharing influence with Washington, which the latter has not allowed, alongside a sectarian religious inclination hostile to Arabs.

In all cases, regardless of the outcome of this round of war, the Arabs are the losers, and the Arab world and the Middle East after this war will not be the same as before; the biggest loser will be the Palestinian people and all the aspirations of the Arab nation for unity or even for maintaining sovereignty over their national states.