By Philip Acey |Argumentum
Trump’s strategic ambiguity in regards to an overt U.S. intervention in Iran to strike nuclear and military facilities as well as eliminate high-value Iranian figures has the world on edge, especially critics of U.S. foreign policy.
On one side, there are foreign critics such as the Russian government. On the other are so-called anti-war figures within the U.S. from both the Republicans and Democrats.
Whether or not Trump decides to intervene militarily against the Iranian government has nevertheless highlighted the roots of critics’ fears and exposed their interests.
Let’s take a step back and observe what has taken place in the Middle East over the past year, which presents the regional context from the perspective of Israel and the U.S. Through a broad lens, Iran’s arc of influence that stretched from Iran through Iraq to Syria, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and Yemen has been greatly weakened by Israel over the past year.
Israel has assassinated many of the top leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah – and is directly engaged in Gaza to remove Hamas from power – significantly weakening the capabilities of both groups. In Yemen, Israel (along with the U.S. and UK) has conducted multiple strikes against the military and strategic infrastructure of the Iran-aligned Houthi militants. In Syria, the Iran-allied Bashar al-Assad government collapsed with help from years of covert and overt operations by Israel, which also simultaneously eliminated the threat posed to it by Iran-allied militias active along the Israel-Syria border.
In short, actions and pressure from Israel over the past few years has led to a significant realization of results over the past year to seriously weaken the influence of the Iranian government to project its interests in the Middle East, alongside weakening the capabilities of the Iran’s militant allies that conduct activities contrary to Israeli, U.S., and EU interests.
As a result of weakening Iran’s proxies, the governments of Israel and the U.S. feel momentum is on their side to focus efforts on the sponsor of these proxies: the Iranian government.
Whether their end goal is simply to significantly reduce the capabilities of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs and/or take actions to facilitate regime change remains to be stated publicly.
Yet, it is this trend of Israeli successes and the potential of regime change in Iran that has opponents worried. On June 18, Russia’s Foreign Ministry’s Spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated, “Whether you like a regime or you don’t, if it doesn’t attack you, and if it doesn’t do or say anything that from the point of view of international law creates a direct threat to people or a state, you have no right to change the regime. You have no right to say that since you don’t like it it has to be destroyed.”
However, even according to the Russian Foreign Ministry’s own standards, the regime of Iran since 1979 has been an actor contributing to destabilization in the region, which includes but is not limited to sponsoring terrorist groups that have repeatedly committed attacks on Israeli and American targets throughout the Middle East and globally; attempting to export its Shiite theocratic revolution throughout the Middle East (which kick-started the Iran-Iraq war from 1980-1988); attacking Israel; interdicting freedom of navigation in the Gulf of Hormuz, Gulf of Oman, the Red Sea, and Bab el Mandeb Strait either directly or by proxy; and enriching significant amounts of uranium well beyond the level needed for a civilian nuclear program while displaying dissonance between their official rhetoric and activities on the ground.
The position of the Russian government exposes their concerns and their national interest. Russia is pushing back against escalation because they fear losing Iran, just like Syria, to a more pro-West/Israel regime. Their opposition has little to do with nuclear weapons or international law. They fear a stronger strategic position for the U.S. in Iran and the wider region. Note that Syria under President Assad was a very close Russian ally. Since it was toppled, Russian influence there has significantly diminished and this has been a major frustration covered in Russian media ever since to the point that even everyday Syrians are complaining over the cut of Russian programs that previously helped Syrians.
Russia fears that regime change in Iran would lead to the loss of their main ally in the Middle East and return a pro-West government to power on the borders of the former Soviet states and the Caspian Sea. Yet the Kremlin hides this fear under the guise of fear-mongering about a “potential nuclear disaster” if Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is continually targeted. By focusing on the nuclear weapons issue and asking open-ended questions without presenting answers themselves, the Russian government is trying to cast doubt in people’s minds by drawing parallels to America’s intervention in Iraq in 2003. The goal of this narrative is simply to undermine trust in Western governments, weaken alliances, and build public pressure to influence the U.S. government to act in a way that stops short of regime change, which is in the Russian national interest.
Just like Iraq in 2003, the U.S. did not intervene over a sole issue – possession of nuclear weapons. It is not strategically necessary to provide proof of whether or not the Iranian regime is currently producing a nuclear weapon because the roots of the current Israeli and potential U.S. intervention is much broader than that, taking into account momentum, opportunity, and Iran’s history of being a destabilizing actor towards Western interests in the region. From an even broader perspective, Iran – a BRICS member – is a major proponent for the demise of the unipolar world order led by the U.S. and the realization of a multipolar world order, which for obvious reasons poses a systemic threat to U.S. interests.
In regards to opposition from those within the U.S., opponents are saying that this is not America’s fight and that Iran does not harm U.S. interests, such as stated by Congresswoman llhan Omar. Media personality Tucker Carlson has been spouting that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been saying for 30 years that Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, yet has never done so. However, what such critics fail to raise is the covert war and diplomatic moves that Israel, the U.S., and much of Europe has been waging against Iran and its nuclear weapons program over many years, which has directly contributed towards preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon plus deterring them from reaching that threshold.
Think back to the Stuxnet cyber attack in 2010 that set back the program and destroyed many centrifuges, the many assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists conducted by Israel over the years, and the Iran nuclear deal (officially “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action”) enacted in 2015 precisely to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Without these actions by Israel, the U.S. and UN Security Council members, Iran could well have already obtained a nuclear weapon many years ago.
Tucker Carlson also argues that the U.S. doesn’t know anything about Iran and this risks the U.S. getting caught up in another forever-war like Afghanistan, which could lead to the fracturing of the MAGA movement. What Carlson seems to misunderstand is that the MAGA movement is not anti-war but only against war within the strict context of waging war not in the U.S. national interest and without a realistic and achievable end goal. Iran will not become another Libya or Iraq, but that is entirely another article to write.
Just like the Russian government, Tucker Carlson is trying to create a wedge in the MAGA movement to alter Trump’s behavior to focus more on alleged internal party dissent rather than harming the Iranian regime’s and Russia’s national interest and advancing America’s own interests. These critics are also critical of the strong U.S.-Israel alliance and see America as a force that has done more harm than good on the world stage. There is no doubt that America has its share of failures but to quote President Putin from June 18, “Let he who is without sin among you throw the first stone at me”.
Since 1979, regime change in Iran has been a U.S. national interest regardless of political leader or party, whether or not it has actually been pursued. At the very least, it would be welcomed.
What is clear is that Israeli and American actions over the past many years have changed the Middle East and brought the region to where it is now: a point where Iran is weak and vulnerable with its proxy-allies significantly hamstrung.
This may be the opportunity that the U.S. will take advantage of, but nevertheless, it has U.S. opponents very worried, and for that the U.S. and Israel know they are doing something right.
*Philip Acey is a PhD candidate from Canada and an independent political researcher and analyst who has worked on the ground for over a decade across Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America, visiting more than 50 countries. His research has been used worldwide to advise the UN Security Council, UN agencies, diplomats, and humanitarian organizations
© 2025 Argumentum
