US President Donald Trump’s threats to strike Iran are not about removing a ruthless dictatorship and helping Iranians to build a democracy. They are about Israel, pure and simple.
Trump signalled that he would bomb Iran again in a bid to assist anti-government protesters who have poured into the streets of Iranian towns and cities in recent weeks, angry over the collapse of the Iranian currency and the soaring cost of living.
The protests, which later widened to demands for political change in a theocratic regime that has been in power for nearly five decades, have reportedly spread to 180 cities and towns in all Iran’s 31 provinces and expanded across its minority groups.
Amid the brutal crackdown, some 2,500 people, including members of the security forces, have reportedly been killed and thousands of others have been wounded in the violence and probably additional tens of thousands have been arrested.
Trump immediately seized on the unrest and warned of “very strong action” if the regime proceeded with the executions of protesters in connection with the nationwide protests that have rocked the country.
Taking a bellicose stance towards the Iranian regime, Trump urged the Iranian protesters to keep going and promised them that US “help is on its way.”
Trump’s choice of rallying cry signalled possible military action against Iran in response to the regime’s crackdown, especially after the US evacuated troops from the Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest in the Middle East.
The Pentagon also moved troops and equipment away from some facilities in the Gulf, echoing moves taken before the US-Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites and other facilities in June last year.
Yet, as the world held its breath, no attack on Iran took place, and Trump seemed to be backing off after he told reporters that he had been “told that the killing in Iran has stopped”.
At the time Al-Ahram Weekly went to press, the protests had generally subsided and reports from Iran indicated that they had largely died down.
What seems to be an uneasy calm hanging over Iranian cities has prompted Trump to thank the Iranian government for what he claimed was its not following through on the “hanging of over 800 people.”
Trump’s moves in the Iranian crisis are symptomatic of his dramatic approach to both domestic and foreign policy, causing political disruption and creating more unpredictability.
Some reports have suggested that Trump is delaying a decision on striking Iran as he consults internally and with allies about the timing for such an operation and whether it would meaningfully destabilise the Islamic regime.
But Trump’s decision to scale down his rhetoric has exposed deep uncertainty, both inside the US administration and among its allies, about the risks of strikes that would punish Iran while inviting major retaliation.
The White House, meanwhile, has sought to confirm that Trump is still determined to punish the Iranian regime in support of the protesters and has warned that the military option remains firmly on the table.
However, the escalation has raised questions about Trump’s goals and whether he is contemplating regime change in Iran, with some pointing to the US president’s proclivities and Venezuela after US troops seized its former president Nicolás Maduro.
What helped to trigger the speculation about regime change in Iran was the sudden appearance of Reza Pahlavi, only son of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran’s last shah, who was quickly portrayed by the Western media as a symbol of the opposition.
Since the outbreak of the protests in Iran, Pahlavi has been appearing on US television networks calling on the Trump administration to intervene in support of the protests. He has also declared that he is prepared to return to Iran to lead a “national revolution.”
Pahlavi has long sought to market himself as a potential counterweight to the clerics who wield power in Tehran. The US media has been inflating his popularity in the country as many in Iran remain sceptical about his ability to build a credible opposition movement.
What prompted the speculation about regime change was a meeting between White House Envoy Steve Witkoff and Pahlavi and their discussions of the recent wave of demonstrations in Iran.
Whatever Trump’s objectives are, his beating the drums of war has already sent shockwaves across the region, with Egypt, Turkey, and Arab US-allies in the Gulf all raising concerns about the repercussions of a potential American strike on Iran.
News reports say that the Gulf nations that have engaged in indirect conflict with Iran do not support American military action there because they are worried of the ripple effects of any such conflict in the region.
Using his usual boastful tone, however, Trump dismissed reports that he had faced pressure from the Arab countries to talk him out of an attack on Iran and said that it was Iran’s actions that had swayed him.
“Nobody convinced me. I convinced myself,” he said.
It remains to be seen if Trump has reversed course, however, since he has pulled off misleading feints with Iran in the past. In June last year, he suggested that his administration was engaged in talks with Iran over its nuclear programme, when in reality it was preparing to attack the Islamic Republic.
White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt has reiterated that all options are on the table if Iran resumes killing the protesters. She said that Trump and his team “have communicated to the Iranian regime that if the killing continues, there will be grave consequences”.
With the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group now on its way to the Gulf and the possible dispatch of the George H W Bush carrier group to the region, there have been suggestions that Trump is considering a range of options against Iran.
At its core, the standoff is not about regime change in Iran. It is rather about an attempt to coerce Tehran into giving up its nuclear and missile programmes and its regional proxies as a result of escalating military threats, while all the while tightening the economic blockade on the country and stepping up espionage, propaganda, and cyber-warfare.
Seen against this background, the escalation seems to be designed to be a driver of the destabilisation of Iran to serve the agenda of Israel, which aims at curbing Iran’s nuclear programme, weakening its military power, and undermining its regional influence through its proxies.
Reports in the US and Western media say that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked Trump to hold off on striking Iran to give Israel more time to prepare for possible Iranian retaliation.
Israel, which launched its own strikes on Iran in June last year, is more than eager to see Trump waging another military campaign on Iran, ostensibly to finish the unfinished job of obliterating Iran’s power.
Indeed, the Israeli military has confirmed that it is “prepared for both defence and attack,” and the issue of air defence does not limit its options. The Israeli media have reported that Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir is working in close coordination with US CENTCOM Commander Admiral Brad Cooper, and they are coordinating on what will happen next.
But any new military campaign against Iran would be far more complicated this time around than Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s narratives might suggest. With no concrete plans or vision in mind, it is far from clear what could happen afterwards.
First, it is unlikely that the regime would fall as a result of a US attack, and second an attack would not guarantee the end of the repression of the Iranian people by the regime. Third, a new attack on Iran would not obliterate its weapons programmes or its regional ambitions.
As the crisis mounted, there were credible rumours in Middle Eastern diplomatic circles that Iran had told regional countries hosting US bases in the Gulf that it would attack those targets in the event of a US strike.
In June last year, Iran struck the Al-Udeid Base in Qatar after the US hit its nuclear sites, triggering fears of a broader conflict. The attack was largely behind Trump’s decision to stop the 12-day aerial campaign against Iran.
One thing remains clear today – that any destabilisation of Iran will rattle the entire Middle East and will likely transform the region, contributing to further instability and producing immediate costs to the interests of its peoples.
A thoughtful consideration of all the factors involved in any potential disruption in the region reveals just how much Israel would be the only beneficiary of the ensuing quagmire.
This explains the true goals of any war on Iran – which would be to allow Israel to exploit the ensuing turmoil in order to create a further pathway for the new Middle East it aspires to creating.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 22 January, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: