If the conflict continues on the terms sought by the US, there is an increasingly strong possibility that the country ultimately facing the greatest geopolitical consequences will be America itself
The escalation of air strikes carried out by Israel and the US against Iran has opened a new, extremely dangerous phase in the broader geopolitical conflict in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. As raids intensify and military operations gain momentum and geographic reach, the fundamental question emerging concerns more than just the military effectiveness of the attacks. The critical issue is the true strategic goal of Washington—and, crucially, whether it can be achieved.
Official United States rhetoric speaks of neutralizing Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic programs. However, behind this phrasing, analysts and political circles recognize a much more ambitious deeper objective: regime change in Iran. The problem for Washington is that history has repeatedly shown such goals are rarely achieved through air power alone. Furthermore, Iran is neither the Iraq of 2003 nor the Libya of 2011.
A state far more resilient than Washington believes
The Iranian state possesses one of the most deeply rooted security apparatuses in the Middle East. At the heart of this system lies the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which functions not only as a military force but also as a political, economic, and ideological power center. Simultaneously, the IRGC is supported by the Basij paramilitary network, a vast web of local militias scattered throughout the entire country.
This system is decentralized and deeply embedded in society, making a total collapse extremely difficult. Precisely for this reason, many strategic analysts point out that the idea of air strikes alone leading to the fall of the Iranian regime is more of a wishful thought than a realistic strategy.
The US plan: Destabilization from within
If military force is insufficient, what is the next step? According to many analyses, Washington is considering an alternative scenario: utilizing armed groups from ethnic minorities within Iran. The logic is simple yet dangerous. If central authority in Tehran is weakened by continuous military pressure, security vacuums may be created. In these gaps, organized armed groups could emerge, serving as a substitute for a direct United States military presence on the ground. In other words, a form of indirect warfare through local forces. However, this strategy is fraught with risks—not only for Iran but for the entire region.
The ethnic complexity of Iran
Iran is a country of more than 90 million people with significant ethnic diversity. While Persians constitute the majority, there are large communities of Kurds, Azeris, Arabs, Balochis, and other smaller ethnic groups. Many of these communities reside in peripheral provinces near the borders, creating a complex geopolitical environment. Periodically, various armed organizations have carried out attacks against Iranian security forces. Among them, the Kurdish organizations are the most organized.
The Kurds and the new rebel alliance
Days before the current conflict erupted, five Kurdish organizations operating in Iraqi Kurdistan announced the formation of a joint alliance aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. This alliance includes the Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK), the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI), the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), the Organization of Iranian Kurdistan Struggle (Khabat), and the Komala of the Toilers of Kurdistan. Despite ideological differences—with some groups seeking autonomy and others full independence—these organizations have decided to join forces. This development did not go unnoticed by Tehran. Iran reportedly carried out preemptive strikes against PAK and PDKI positions in Iraqi Kurdistan, attempting to prevent the conflict from transferring into the country's interior.
Secret US contacts
According to reports, the United States has already opened a communication channel with Kurdish organizations regarding the possibility of coordinated attacks against Iranian security forces, as noted by The National Interest. Donald Trump has stated he is open to supporting armed groups that could "oust" the Tehran regime. Information suggests there have been contacts with political leaders in Baghdad and Erbil. However, this strategy strongly echoes previous examples of American policy in the Middle East—with results that have often proven catastrophic.
The Balochis and the new guerrilla front
The Kurds are not the only ones appearing on the geopolitical stage. In southeastern Iran, the Balochis, an ethnic group living in one of the country's poorest regions, are active. The organization Jaish al-Adl has collaborated with smaller groups to create a new coalition called the People’s Resistance Front. The new alliance claims to be fighting for the rights of all ethnic and religious minorities in Iran. However, its actual power remains limited. Furthermore, a major obstacle exists: Jaish al-Adl has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States since 2019, meaning Washington will find it difficult to support them openly.
The geopolitical nightmare feared by Iran's neighbors
The strengthening of ethnic guerrilla movements in Iran could provoke severe reactions from neighboring countries. Turkey, for instance, is monitoring developments with particular concern. The PJAK organization has close ties to the PKK, which could lead Ankara into military involvement if Kurdish forces are strengthened. Similar concern exists in Pakistan. The country is already facing its own Balochi insurgency and fears that destabilization in Iran could bolster the guerrillas within its own borders. In other words, Washington's strategy could trigger a massive geopolitical domino effect of instability across the entire region.
Why the "Balkanization" of Iran is unlikely
Despite the tensions, many experts consider the complete dissolution of Iran to be extremely unlikely. Ethnic groups, although concentrated in specific regions, are deeply integrated into the Iranian state. Even among minorities, there is a strong element of Iranian nationalism. Furthermore, the most likely secession scenario—that of the Kurds—would face fierce resistance from both Iran and Turkey.
Washington's greatest mistake
The fundamental problem with American strategy is that it is based on an old and recurring delusion: that external pressure will lead to the internal collapse of a state. Experience from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya shows the opposite. These interventions did not create stability—they created chaos, civil wars, and decades of instability. In the case of Iran, the risk is even greater. This is a country with a powerful state apparatus, a large population base, and a deep national identity.
The most likely endgame
If the conflict continues, the most likely outcome will not be the collapse of Iran. Instead, it is likely to create a prolonged period of instability, guerrilla movements, and regional conflicts. In such a scenario, the United States will find itself facing the same dilemma it has faced so many times in the past: either become more deeply involved in an endless war or withdraw, leaving chaos behind. In both cases, the result is the same: the strategic defeat of Washington. The history of the Middle East has shown time and again that great powers trying to impose regime changes often end up trapped in their own snares. Iran may emerge wounded from this conflict. However, if the conflict continues on the terms sought by the United States, there is an increasingly strong possibility that the country ultimately facing the greatest geopolitical consequences will be America itself.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών