The strategic objectives of both the US and Iran are apparent in the very differing agendas that each party wants for the talks. The US-led West and Israel seek a total capitulation of Iran; primarily a complete, irreversible annihilation of its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes (amongst other demands). Iran, on the other hand, looks to retain these programmes and get rid of all economic, diplomatic, technological, and military sanctions. Furthermore, the US-Israel Combine intends to bludgeon Iran into submission, while the latter has threatened a regional war. Both antagonists have taken up maximal positions, endeavouring to bridge the chasm, if at all, at a minimal cost to their vital national interests.

The US must pay heed to this declared Iranian intent. In case of war, Iran’s strategic options are manifold and could portend serious geopolitical and geostrategic ramifications. It is quite obvious that Iran does not have the strategic reach to attack or hit the continental USA. Therefore, it is bound to target US interests in the region, especially the state of Israel, its nuclear-missile programme, and US military bases in the region. These will include the Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, the US Army base in Kuwait, as well as US bases in the KSA and UAE. US naval assets in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea, too, could be targeted. In addition, the global oil industry and trade could be hit very hard. Oil fields, pipelines, ports, terminals, etc., on the Arabian Peninsula and tankers, shipping, Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs), etc., in the Persian Gulf–Arabian Sea region, all could become logical targets for Iranian missiles. Furthermore, a blocking of the Hormuz Straits would have extremely crippling effects on global oil trade and on regional and global economies. The price of oil could go through the stratosphere. A war imposed on Iran could rapidly spiral into unintended dimensions with unexpected consequences and could speedily become uncontrollable. The US-Israel Combine must not start a war that it cannot control or bring to a timely, decisive, and desirable closure.

Iran’s resistance to capping, rolling back, and eliminating its nuclear programme is quite understandable. It must have studied the contrasting fortunes of non-nuclear Ukraine and nuclear North Korea and come to some very well-considered analyses and deductions. It is crystal clear that Ukraine made the most serious error of judgement by signing the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. It then fatefully reposed its confidence and trust in the US, UK, and Russia and handed over its nuclear warheads and missiles (inherited from the erstwhile USSR) to Russia. It was assured of guaranteed protection and security by these three powers. Ukraine stands destroyed and devastated today, in a war essentially engineered and instigated by the US, supported by Europe, waged by Russia, and fought by the hapless, trapped Ukrainians themselves. Ukraine could have possibly deterred Russia from attacking it had it retained its nuclear-missile prowess. On the other hand, North Korea is a continuously evolving nuclear power. It regularly tests its missile systems and displays its dexterity in the nuclear domain and its multifarious dimensions. Consequently, it has not been attacked by any country, especially the US and its coterie of European and Asian allies. Ironically, President Trump has felt compelled to hold talks with the North Korean President. The nuclear effect in geopolitics is thus real, clearly demonstrated, and established; a precedent now exists that might henceforth influence strategic decision-making in the nuclear domain by affected states. Iran, the designated enemy in the ME, therefore might have a strategic choice to make — a fate like Ukraine or North Korea. Hypothetically speaking, had Iran crossed the nuclear Rubicon during or about the June 2025 Iran-Israel war, it might have yet created the deterrent that it would be sorely missing today.

The US-led West and Israel have all along pursued a policy for the latter to dominate the Middle East. There have been numerous wars, clashes, skirmishes, surgical strikes, and annexations of territories in the region; yet there is no lasting peace, stability or unchallenged Israeli hegemony either. Israel knows no peace either; it is perpetually at war with itself and its nemeses in the region. Its compulsion for a Greater Israel vitiates the strategic environment even more. Syria, Lebanon, Palestine (West Bank, Gaza), Iraq, Libya, etc., all stand devastated. Iran has withstood numerous attacks too. This appears to be a self-defeating exercise. Could the US-led West and Israel consider a different approach to attain their strategic objectives? Could they consider giving peace a chance, turning the ME into a No-War Zone for a specific period of time, and then trying to resolve all issues peacefully? Allowing only Israel to have nuclear-missile capabilities in the ME is unsustainable. No such unjust, unfair, unjustified, imposed strategic dispensations can stand the tests of time and war for long. Is a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone yet doable? This compulsive obsession with a contrived imbalance of power will always trump peace, progress, and prosperity in the region.

This Armageddon has crept all over the ME and is now at Iran’s doorstep. (The Creeping Armageddon, 06 & 15 February 2020; Armageddon Creeps Forward, 22 June 2025; Armageddon Creeps Forth, 23 June 2025, by this scribe, The Nation). Will Israel’s abiding insecurities continue to embroil the US-led West in further (mis)adventures? Do the US-led West and Israel now intend to expand this contrived imbalance of power in the ME to the Greater Middle East Region (GMER), too? This Armageddon is bound to move east of Iran. Heightened instability in Balochistan is not without reason. Pakistan must have an unambiguous view of its vital national interests and move NOW to secure them. Period.

Imran MalikThe writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army. He can be reached at im.k846@gmail.com and tweets @K846Im.

© The Nation