Bob Beck's Foreign Policy Blog

The American and Israeli joint strike against Iran, beginning with the 1 March assassination of the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has plunged the entire Middle East into a violent vortex with seemingly no end on the horizon. The hostilities, called “A War Without Strategy” in the 7 March edition of the Economist, have significantly disrupted global oil supplies, riled financial markets, and affected millions of people, including many innocent citizens in heretofore non-belligerent states. A salient question to appraise as the war extends into a second week is why the United States and Israel chose to attack when they did.

From a tactical standpoint, reliable accounts indicate that the assault schedule was determined by U.S. intelligence information that pinpointed the exact time and location of supreme leader Khamenei on the first day of March. The opportunity to cut off the head of the Iranian snake apparently proved too enticing for the White House to pass up so Trump—or Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu; more on that later—gave the green light. Though the initial strike achieved its immediate goal, the last ten days have shown that it was not the hoped-for knock-out blow. 

In terms of grand strategy, the Trump administration has sent mixed signals about the justification for the attack, at times citing Iran’s nuclear program, their support of terrorist groups across the region—the “H” triad of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, and fidelity to our Israeli allies in their quixotic quest to finally decapitate the Iranian leadership. Two additional possibilities, domestic politics and distraction, neither of which are found in any White House statements, also merit consideration.

Regarding the nuclear program, that has constituted an existential threat to Tel Aviv for several years. If that, however, is the driver then Trump was practicing perfidious puffery back in June of 2025 when he posited that that month’s American strike—Operation Midnight Hammer— had “completely and totally obliterated” Tehran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. 

As for ending Iranian support for the anti-Israeli/American groups listed above, much of Tehran’s succor had already dried up due to Iran’s growing geopolitical infirmities stemming from Bashar al-Assad’s fall in Syria, stinging military defeats by both Hezbollah and Hamas at the hands of the Israelis, and a moribund Iranian economy sputtering under western sanctions. The past week has demonstrated that Hezbollah still poses a threat to Israel, although it seems a stretch as a casus belli for the scope of the present conflict. 

Next on the list is the rationale of defending our Israeli allies, an explanation that Secretary of State Rubio used on 2 March when he opined that the Jewish state was preparing to attack Iran so America needed to join the fight. This idea is quite plausible and would constitute the second recent example of the Israeli tail wagging the American dog in the Persian Gulf. In June of 2025 the Israelis essentially forced Trump’s hand when they launched an attack on Iran, the express goal of which—to destroy the Mullahs’ nuclear program, could only be accomplished with American military hardware, specifically 30,000-lb bunker buster bombs. 

One can assume that Israeli intelligence determined in the interim that the June attacks had not, as alleged, “obliterated” Tehran’s atomic efforts and that a second, more robust, round of destruction was merited. If that is the case, it begs the question, who is determining Washington’s policy in the Middle East, the White House or Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu?

What about domestic politics? Trump, an obsessive follower of polls, is undoubtedly aware of the prospects of a Democratic resurgence in the upcoming mid-term elections, an eventuality that would seriously hamper his domestic and global slash and burn agenda. He would not be the first, nor the last, world leader to embark on a “foreign adventure” in the hopes of short term military success to push him/his party over the finish line in critical elections. The fly in this ointment is what happens if the war doesn’t go to plan, which more often than not turns out to be the case. 

Lastly, history is replete with examples of leaders using an international crisis to rally the populace around the flag, distracting them from the regime’s scandals and policy failures. Would Trump employ such a strategy? Given his current domestic woes with ICE agents hunting “domestic terrorists” (good riddance Kristi Noem) in Minnesota, ongoing tariff trauma, and serious allegations of coverup by the administration related to the Epstein files, Trump would be wholly in character to seek foreign glory to repair his tarnished image.

Whichever of the above justifications—or combinations thereof—you believe, the war is another nail in the coffin of the post World War II international order. In a speech to the Australian parliament on 4 March, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stated bluntly that the “global order is breaking down.” If the past week is any indication, the wheels have already officially come off of the global order train. In the process the savagery emanating from the Persian Gulf provides a grisly preview of a world disorder based more on might makes right and predatory violence than adherence to lofty goals of the diplomatic resolution of disputes and peaceful coexistence.

Note: This article was submitted on 8 March for consideration to both the Monadnock Ledger-Transcript and the Brattleboro Reformer.