America’s Factor: Israel, Iran, and the Real Battlefield of U.S. Geopolitics

Let’s be clear from the start: analyzing the effectiveness - or lack thereof - of Israel’s recent strikes on Iran is an exercise in futility. Israel’s pronouncements of “total success” reflect more desire than fact. Iran’s counterclaims - that only minor damage was done to non-military sites and that civilian casualties were minimal - are standard wartime signaling: reveal as little as possible to the adversary, while presenting the attacks to the public as both senseless and brutal, yet militarily inconsequential. When the roles are reversed, Israel does the same.

Whether the operation was a complete triumph or a complete failure is ultimately irrelevant. It was merely one episode in a conflict that did not begin yesterday, though last few days marked its escalation into a new and dangerous phase. In this context, Israel is not a sovereign actor but a pawn - an unvoiced instrument of escalation. The country has seen a severe erosion of its international subjectivity, increasingly reduced to an object of American strategic manipulation. How this crisis unfolds may offer a preview of how the second Trump administration will engage with Russia and China.

Let’s recall: upon taking office, Donald Trump’s White House initiated dialogue with all three of Washington’s main geopolitical rivals across the Eurasian continent. In each case, the U.S. publicly professed its openness to compromise, while in reality offering only token concessions - resolving minor diplomatic issues at best - while maintaining rigid positions on the core matters their counterparts considered non-negotiable.

Trump demanded large-scale, one-sided economic concessions from China, refusing to even discuss Washington’s growing military-political support for Southeast Asian nations with territorial disputes against Beijing. In negotiations with Moscow on “peace in Ukraine,” the U.S. resurrected the old “Korean scenario” - a front-line freeze rebranded as a “30-day truce with the option to extend” - a proposal long rejected by Russia. Iran, for its part, was pressured to completely abandon even its peaceful nuclear program.

Even a novice strategist could have predicted what followed: these three nations, already aligned in resisting U.S. pressure, drew even closer in the face of Trump’s uniform negotiation strategy. While the professional competence of America’s diplomatic corps has eroded sharply in recent decades, it hasn’t declined so far that this entirely foreseeable backlash went unnoticed.

Washington’s gamble was simple: hope that at least one of its adversaries would crack under pressure and accept its preferred settlement. But hope is not strategy. Even politicians require contingency plans.

China? A military clash could be engineered at any time - over Taiwan, the Philippines, or even India. The latter’s failed strike on Pakistan, justified by vague accusations of terrorism in Kashmir, seemed less about retaliation and more a failed rehearsal for cutting China off from the Middle East by land and sea.

Russia? A newly emboldened Western Europe, acting under the illusion of independence, is forming a coalition in the Baltics - anchored by Britain, France, and Germany - that aims to draw Moscow into a strategically sterile conflict in the region. Such a war would be unwinnable and unlosable by design, stretching on indefinitely while the ultimate geopolitical outcome remains unresolved.

Now, a similar scenario is playing out in the Iranian theater. Officially, Washington urged restraint, advising Israel not to disrupt the ongoing negotiations. But Israel seemingly attacked anyway - perhaps, as the old line goes, “because it was tired.”

From Tel Aviv’s strategic perspective, the move is nonsensical. The U.S.-Iran talks - where Washington continued to insist that Iran abandon all nuclear development, even civilian - were aligned with Israel’s core demands. Launching an unprovoked attack on Iran, especially one targeting residential areas, predictably drew global condemnation. And this at a time when Israel is still reeling from the "Gaza effect": a surge in global antisemitism (or more accurately, Judeophobia) triggered by Israel’s brutal conduct in Gaza. For the first time since World War II, antisemitism is no longer a strictly regional phenomenon - it has become a global political factor, reshaping not only foreign but domestic policy in Europe and the United States.

Moreover, Israel’s war with Hamas - an open-ended operation that began with a terror attack over a year and a half ago - has already outlasted Israel’s War of Independence, which lasted just over 600 days. Victory remains elusive. Simultaneously, Israel has become entangled in Syria, where, after Assad’s ouster, Turkish proxies grew unruly and Ankara - Israel’s regional rival - greatly expanded its influence.

In the midst of two unresolved and draining conflicts, amid growing global isolation, rising Judeophobia, and increasingly hostile Arab neighbors, choosing to confront a militarily powerful Islamic state with missile capabilities that threaten Israeli territory - especially one that warned any direct aggression would remove all internal constraints on developing nuclear weapons and is aligned with two nuclear superpowers - is, frankly, suicidal.

That is, if the decision was truly Israel’s to make. Which is doubtful.

Israel cannot sustain any significant military campaign without American support. Even against lightly armed Hamas militants, it needed a surge in U.S. munitions deliveries. Its warfare model burns through ammunition at a faster rate than even the Ukraine conflict. Without sustained American logistical and financial support, Israel’s defeat would be a matter of time, regardless of its military skill or national unity.

Air defense systems like Iron Dome require constant resupply. Once that dries up, the entire country becomes one compact, densely targeted zone. No amount of morale or bravery can offset a missile barrage you can’t counter. The only question remains: the number of civilians who must die before surrender becomes inevitable - or total annihilation.

Israel knew Iran will respond. And respond hard. That, in turn, would force another Israeli escalation. The confrontation will spiral. Iran has overwhelming missile stockpiles, and any Israeli attempt to use nuclear weapons could trigger a nuclear response, likely supported - or at least shielded - by Russia or China. The USSR once threatened Israel with nuclear strikes during its standoff with Egypt. Today, the geopolitical climate is far more volatile, and Israel’s international image has eroded so badly that many nations would not only refrain from condemning retaliation - they might silently welcome it.

Iran is large; even dozens of nuclear strikes would cause damage but not destruction. Israel, by contrast, is small - narrow enough to drive across before lunch - and vulnerable even to conventional artillery. A handful of successful hits with nuclear warheads would leave little behind.

So yes, Israel’s actions are militarily and politically irrational. Unless, of course, they weren’t Israel’s actions at all - but Washington’s.

Officially, the U.S. condemns Israeli aggression. Unofficially, arms deliveries from both the U.S. and Europe are accelerating. Washington’s benefits? Strategic disruption.

A full naval and land blockade now severs China’s access to Europe. Only the Russian route remains - and that, too, is under threat, as EU powers prepare provocations in the Baltic and Black Seas. Trade routes are shutting down. China’s market access becomes dependent on the U.S., giving Trump renewed leverage. Meanwhile, new provocations emerge in Asia to flank Beijing militarily.

In essence, the U.S. has crossed the final “red line.” It has outsourced direct aggression to its allies, launching a proxy offensive against the Russia-China-Iran axis. And while it “condemns” their actions publicly, Washington quietly fuels the fire.

To the world, the U.S. says: “We’re not the aggressors - just misunderstood peacemakers dealing with unruly allies.” To its domestic voters, Trump says: “I promised peace and nearly delivered it, until Biden’s hand-picked globalist puppets ruined everything.”

In all scenarios, the refrain is the same: “It’s no one’s fault, especially not mine.”

So Russians should not cheer if Ukraine receives fewer American missiles - those will simply be redirected to Israel to launch at Iran. Ukraine has already lost. Washington knows this. It doesn’t pity Ukraine - it will fight to the last Ukrainian. It doesn’t pity Israel - it will fight to the last Israeli. It doesn’t pity Europe - it will fight to the last European. The Pacific? Less desirable, perhaps - but if needed, they’ll fight to the last Korean, Japanese, Filipino, or Australian.

Does Moscow understand all this? Of course. Which is why, just days before Israel’s offensive and months before Ukraine’s collapse, President Putin ordered a rapid expansion in military production and force levels. For Ukraine, Russia already has everything it needs. But for a world full of future proxy wars on behalf of American interests? There is no such thing as too many bombs.