Since the United States and Israel commenced their unwarranted and unprovoked strike against Iran, codenamed Operation Epic Fury by the US and Roaring Lion by Israel, the character of the offensive has become apparent. It constitutes a large-scale bombing campaign intended to systematically dismantle the Iranian state and subjugate the entire population. The US under Trump has started a war whose outcomes it neither anticipates nor controls. Its actions have an element of irrationality, but this irrationality is based on decades of aggression in the Middle East, and in particular against Iran.

Wesley Clark famously recounted seeing a 2001 Pentagon memo that detailed plans to “take out” seven countries over five years, culminating in Iran. Clark attributed the origin of these plans to the neoconservatives within the George W. Bush administration, specifically mentioning the influence of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) (Greenwald, 2011). PNAC was an influential think tank established in 1997, and almost all of its major figures found themselves in the George W. Bush administration after 2000. Considering US foreign policy in the Middle East since the start of this century, this attack should not be considered a surprise and is largely unrelated to the idiosyncrasies of Donald Trump, who is simply implementing a longstanding project aimed at establishing complete US dominance over the energy-rich regions of the Middle East. Furthermore, American (and Western) interventions in Iran have a long history.

Iran once had a democratic and secular government led by Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who initiated the nationalization of the British-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) in 1951 primarily to assert Iranian sovereignty and improve national welfare. In 1953, the CIA and MI6 responded by orchestrating a coup d’état to overthrow Mosaddegh. The coup installed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as an absolute monarch – shifting the country towards authoritarianism and restoring favourable Western access to Iran’s oil. Over two decades later, in 1979, the Shah was overthrown in a popular uprising by a broad coalition of Iranians. However, a fundamentalist Islamic group led by Ayatollah Khomeini took control. Leaders of other opposition groups were purged and executed, and Iran became an Islamic Republic later that same year.

A lot of the exceptional violence that the Middle East has seen in the 21st century has been instigated by the US. Trump’s pre-emptive attacks on Iran have been preceded by George W. Bush’s pre-emptive attacks on Iraq in 2003, as well as attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the Obama administration. Whoever the President might be, whether Democrat or Republican, there is a consistency in that remote killings are a big part of an “ethical” US foreign policy that purportedly aims to “democratise” the uncivilised and morally backward through armed interventions.

The social construction of all war requires an ‘othering’ process. In 2001, when he addressed the nation, Bush described the hijackers as “evil”, as “enemies of freedom”, as “faceless enemies of human dignity”, while America is “the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity” that “will always work and sacrifice for the expansion of freedom” (Hamourtziadou, 2020, 28). In addition, in the launching of the War on Terror, old orientalist tropes were used to serve imperial aims, in line with the “clash of civilizations” framework, which we now see again when it comes to Iran. Once again, the two civilizations that are clashing are the one that promotes democracy, freedom, tolerance, justice and equality, and one that espouses intolerance, oppression, tyranny, injustice and dictatorship. And once again, it is an opportunity for America to project its culture, ideas and purported values. This was an era of “tremendous opportunity” for America to present its national values as universal ones and impose them on the globe, through violent means (Fouskas and Gokay, 2005, 126). Trump’s criticism of Iran’s regime as being “among the worst on earth” in 2026 echoes the radio address by Laura Bush on November 18, 2001, urging condemnation of the Taliban:

Afghan women know, through hard experience, what the rest of the world is discovering: the brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrorists. Civilized people throughout the world are speaking out in horror (Bush, 2001).

Afghan women know, through hard experience, what the rest of the world is discovering: the brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrorists. Civilized people throughout the world are speaking out in horror (Bush, 2001).

The killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and members of his family hardly came as a shock, at least to those who remember the killing of Osama Bin Laden and his family members in 2011, ordered by President Obama. Other attacks in Iran killed 165 schoolchildren and staff, when a primary school was bombed. The 6-week-long invasion of Iraq had killed over 7,500 Iraqi civilians (Hamourtziadou, 2026). And so, continuesthe banality of killing, even of civilians, in “self-defence”, as targeted killing is normalised. Political killers become convinced – and convince their public – that a small number of human beings possess the right to decide who must die and what is an acceptable price to pay in other people’s lives, in the pursuit of a sought-after goal. As a result, human beings are executed for being members of a group defined by the killers as evil. Those others, the innocents, become the price that must be paid. Always with much Western “regret”.

For the US, destabilising or gaining control of Iran serves as a precursor to exerting more pressure on Russia and confronting China, which have been the main geopolitical goals of various US administrations since before the War on Terror, as mentioned earlier in this text. The US aims to control global oil supplies, but not because of the need for Iran’s oil. Previously, the US pursued this for energy security and economic advantages. However, now that it has become a net energy exporter in the 21st century, its current aim is to gain influence over China’s oil supply. Although China’s supply appears diversified, the share from US vassal states has gradually increased. Despite geopolitical tensions, China’s primary crude oil suppliers originate from nations with close security alliances with the United States. In 2024 and early 2025, Russia persisted as the leading supplier; however, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates collectively constitute a significant, stable, and US-aligned segment of China’s import portfolio. Amid recent regime changes in Syria and heightened pressures on Venezuela, China’s dependency primarily stays on Russia and Iran. The cessation of Iranian oil imports would markedly weaken China’s position, despite its ongoing transition towards renewable energy sources (Soni & Allen, 2026).

The Trump administration’s actions against Iran are not only illegal but also show a dangerous level of recklessness. Trump, a keen critic of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and the policies of the neoconservatives of the Bush administration, is now repeating exactly the same mistake. To justify the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, fake evidence was manufactured about Iraq’s alleged Weapons of Mass Distraction.  Similarly, the Trump administration now claims that their measures against Iran are connected to its nuclear weapons programme. However, many have pointed out over the years that this claim does not stand up to scrutiny. The assertion that Iran is actively developing a nuclear bomb—specifically, the weaponisation stage—has not been confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  As of March 2026, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi has told there is “no evidence that Iran is currently building a nuclear bomb” (Middle East Monitor, 2026).  Many experts claim that the Trump administration is reusing the 2003 rhetoric to justify its actions against Iran, despite being torn between “America First” isolationism and aggressive interventionism, having a divided team, isolated diplomatic efforts, and chaotic information. “We are not at war with Iran, we’re at war with Iran’s nuclear programme,” Vice President J. D. Vance said. Trump contradicted him by claiming the aim is regime change (Mansour, 2026).  

Negotiations between the US and Iran took place in early February 2026 in Muscat, Oman, with further rounds in Geneva. Just before the bombing in Tehran began, Omani mediators reported “significant progress” and described a “breakthrough” in which Iran agreed never to possess nuclear-grade material. It was just days before the bombing started, the US engaged in what appeared to be dialogue with Iran, but it seems their true aim was always to start a bombing campaign, now openly acknowledged by the US government. This pattern echoes a darker chapter in United States history: the recurrent negotiation and later violation of treaties with Native American nations. The history of United States-Native American relations is defined by a pattern of treaty-making to pacify indigenous resistance or secure land, followed by treaty-breaking as American military dominance and settler expansion increased. From 1778 to 1871, over 500 treaties were signed; many were broken, ignored, or renegotiated by the U.S. government to facilitate westward expansion. Treaties like Fort Laramie (1851 and 1868) granted large territories to the Sioux and Plains tribes but were often broken due to gold rushes and military actions, resulting in reservations and massacres such as Wounded Knee. Forced agreements in the Southeast, such as the Treaty of New Echota (1835) with the Cherokee, facilitated the Trail of Tears (Zotigh, 2019).

These characteristics were not incidental but intrinsic elements of settler-colonial strategies—compromising for convenience when in a position of weakness, reneging when in strength, and justifying betrayal as a form of progress towards “civilization”. Historians often refer to this as a “policy of expediency,” wherein treaties were considered provisional instruments of diplomacy rather than enduring legal arrangements commitments (Urlacher, 2024). This cycle represented a crucial element of the United States westward expansion, often justified by ideologies such as “Manifest Destiny” and implemented through legal, military, and economic pressures. Manifest Destiny was a 19th-century belief that the expansion of the United States across North America was divinely sanctioned, justified, and inevitable. Advocates supported this ideology to rationalise westward expansion as a mission to promote democracy and “civilisation,” a divine endowment, which enabled the acquisition of territories such as Texas, Oregon, and California, while displacing Indigenous peoples (Dobson, 2013).

The current US diplomacy with Iran can be characterised as an extension of an imperial modus operandi, reflecting a pattern in which agreements serve as leverage points, contingent upon full compliance and discarded when paramount interests necessitate escalation. Critics contend that the approach adopted by the Trump administration, integrating military operations with a binary choice between capitulation and conflict, exemplifies historical imperial patterns of dominance. The conflict in Iran constitutes a significantly larger campaign than any of Trump’s earlier interventions, and there is invariably a performative aspect to Trump’s policies and actions. It is most probable that his expectation is for the Iranian regime to unconditionally surrender. At present, there is no evidence to suggest that this will occur. Conversely, the Iranian leadership is intensifying patriotic rhetoric nationwide and leveraging its capacity to disrupt a vital segment of the global energy supply, hoping that Trump may grow weary of this conflict. Simultaneously, there are already concerning signs that this crisis is rapidly escalating into a major international issue.

Barr, James (2012). “The lessons to be learned for today from Britain’s 1951 Iran crisis”, The New Statesman, 13 June, https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/observations/2012/06/the-lessons-to-be-learnt-for-today-from-britains-1951-iran-crisis

Brew, Gregory (2019). “The Collapse Narrative: The United States, Mohammed Mossadegh, and the Coup Decision of 1953”, Texas National Security Review, Vol. 2/4, November, https://tnsr.org/2019/11/the-collapse-narrative-the-united-states-mohammed-mossadegh-and-the-coup-decision-of-1953/

Bush, Laura (2001). “Laura Bush on Taliban oppression of women”, The Washington Post, 17 November, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/laurabushtext_111701.html??noredirect=on  

Dehghan, Saeed Kamali & Richard Norton-Taylor (2013). “CIA admits role in 1953 Iranian coup”, The Guardian, 19 August, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup

Dobson, Darren (2013). “Manifest Destiny and the environmental impacts of Westward expansion”, Flinders Journal of History and Politics, vol.29, January, pp.41-69.

Fouskas, Vassilis. and Bulent Gokay (2005). The New American Imperialism: Bush’s War on Terror and Blood for Oil , Westport, CT: Praeger Security International.

Greenwald, Glenn (2011). “Wes Clark and the neocon dream”, Salon, 26 November, https://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/

Hamourtziadou, Lily (2020). Body Count. The War on Terror and Civilian Deaths in Iraq, Bristol University Press.

Hamourtziadou, Lily (2026). “War Memorialised. How the UK Remembers its Wars and its Dead”, in Hamourtziadou, L. and Lukasik, P. (eds), The Role of Memory in War Politics and Post-Conflict Reconciliation, Routledge.

Mansour Mohammad (2026). “How Trump’s 2026 Iran ‘war’ script echoes and twists the 2003 Iraq playbook”, Al Jazeera, 26 February, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/26/how-trumps-2026-iran-war-script-echoes-and-twists-the-2003-iraq-playbook

Middle East Eye (2026). “Names and ages of children killed in strike on Iranian school”, 4 March, https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/names-and-ages-children-iranian-school-strike

Middle East Monitor (2026). “IAEA says no evidence Iran is building a nuclear bomb”, 4 March, https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260304-iaea-says-no-evidence-iran-is-building-a-nuclear-bomb/

Obama, Barack (2009). “Address to Multi-National Forces Serving in Iraq” , American Rhetoric Online Speech Bank, https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wariniraq/barackobamairaqtroops040709.htm

Soni, Paloma & Catherine Allen (2026). “5 charts show China’s oil dilemma after US strikes”, Politico, 3 February, https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/02/iran-us-strikes-china-oil-supply-charts-00806415

Urlacher, Brian R. (2024). “Broken Promises: Revisiting the Commitment Problem and the Treaties of Fort Laramie”, Ethnopolitics, 30 September, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17449057.2024.2406152

Zotigh, Dennis (2019). “The Treaty That Forced the Cherokee People from Their Homelands Goes on View”, Smithsonian Magazine, 24 April.

Further Reading on E-International Relations

Opinion – The Iran War Viewed Through Broader Regional Security Changes

America First Revisited: Trump’s Agenda and Its Global Implications

The Geopolitical Implications of the Russo-Ukraine War for Central Asia

Opinion – How Could Iran Survive Trump’s Maximum Pressure 2.0?

Opinion – Iran at the Crossroads Pending Trump’s Return

The End of US Democracy and the Implications for International Relations

Bulent Gokay is a Professor of International Relations at Keele University.

Lily Hamourtziadou is a Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Birmingham City University.

They are the authors of Human Costs of War: 21st Century Human (In)Security from 2003 Iraq to 2022 Ukraine (Routledge 2002).

© E-International