Israel, the U.S. and a War to Build a Unipolar West Asia

UPSC Syllabus: Gs Paper 2-International Relation.

Introduction

In February 2026, even as nuclear negotiations were close to success under Omani mediation, the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran, killing its Supreme Leader and senior officials. The timing showed that the issue was not only nuclear control. It signalled a broader attempt to remove Iran’s regime and reshape the regional balance of power in West Asia.

Iran as the Last Strategic Challenger in West Asia

1. Iran as the only revisionist power: Iran is seen as the only state in West Asia openly challenging Israel’s supremacy. Many Arab states host American bases or depend on U.S. aid, but Iran continues to resist this regional order.
2. Nuclear deal versus broader security concerns: In 2015, President Barack Obama aimed to restrict Iran’s nuclear programme for regional stability. However, Israel opposed the deal because its concern included Iran’s conventional strength and advanced missile capability.
3. Demand for total disarmament: Israel demanded that any agreement include Iran’s missile programme and support to militias. Iranian leaders viewed this as surrendering their last deterrent, making acceptance unlikely.
4. Regime change as geopolitical gain: With Iraq, Libya and Syria weakened, Iran remains the last major independent force. If the Islamic Republic falls, West Asia would move toward a unipolar order centred on Israel, fully backed by Washington.

A War of Regime Change, Regional Escalation and Strategic Uncertainty

1. From diplomacy to decapitation: On February 27, Oman’s Foreign Minister stated that Iran had committed not to build a nuclear bomb. Within hours, strikes began and Iran’s top leadership was killed, showing that force replaced diplomacy.
2. Decapitation without ground invasion: Iran is about 70 times bigger than Israel and protected by mountains. Since no country is willing to invade, Israel adopted a decapitation strategy by targeting top leaders.
3. Limits of military shock: In June 2025, after a 12-day war, Iran reorganised and retaliated. In February 2026, even after the killing of its Supreme Leader, the regime did not collapse, proving that leadership assassination does not guarantee regime change.
4. From limited war to regional conflict: Unlike the earlier war, Iran expanded its response by striking American bases across the Persian Gulf and Israel. This marked a shift from bilateral conflict to regional confrontation.
5. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz: Iran announced the shutting of the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-third of global energy supply flows. This move widened the war and created global economic risk.
6. Strategic imbalance and uncertainty: The U.S.–Israel alliance has strong conventional superiority. However, military strength alone does not ensure victory, as Iran’s strategy is to prolong conflict and deny a quick triumph.

Implications of this War

1. Regional destabilisation: The conflict has drawn Gulf monarchies into tension and risks turning into a cross-Gulf war. West Asia is facing one of its most dangerous phases since the Second World War.
2. Global economic shock: Disruption of Hormuz threatens global energy trade and oil markets. Major importers such as India face serious economic risks.
3. Exhaustion of defence systems: A prolonged conflict could exhaust missile defence shields protecting American bases and Israel. This would increase regional vulnerability.
4. Collapse of diplomacy: The war began despite active negotiations. The U.S. withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal in 2018, and again force replaced talks in 2025 and 2026, weakening trust in diplomatic solutions.
5. Erosion of international norms: The war was described as “pre-emptive,” yet there was no evidence of an imminent Iranian attack. The killing of top leaders during negotiations raises serious concerns about respect for international law.

Conclusion

This conflict is not limited to nuclear concerns. It reflects a larger attempt to reshape West Asia’s balance of power. However, Iran’s resistance and regional escalation show that regime change through force is uncertain and risky. If the war continues, it may deepen instability, damage global order, and leave the region more divided than before.

Question for practice:

Discuss how the Israel–U.S. war against Iran reflects an attempt to reshape West Asia’s balance of power, and examine its regional, strategic and global implications.

Source: The Hindu