Is the war against Iran imminent?

Extended version of my commentary on the subject based on the questions and requests to "expand on" some arguments I made.

Is the war against Iran is imminent, or  are we witnessing a double edged, highly risky bluff by the US, or will Israel pull a provocation out of its sleeves to drag US in, or is it a combination all of the above? If so, what is it that they are banking on?

"Their only alternative is playing on the wrong horses with those who have a history of playing at the wrong horses."

 In our technological era sheer numbers of military power does not guarantee the victory in a war. There are various dialectically connected factors at large. In this case one has to study the multi faceted conflicting interests of the neighboring countries in specific, and countries of the world  in general in case of war; economically and politically.  

Affects of war in particular- Middle East

Starting from the fate of "family" countries with half a million to a couple million citizen population whose very existence is dependent on the US-Israel and/or West . Such as; 

Qatar with 300,000 Qatari citizens (a total population ~3 million).  Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar is the largest US military base in the Middle East and forward headquarters of US Central Command (CENTCOM).

Kuwait with ~1.5 million Kuwaiti citizens (a total population ~4.8 million). Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem Air Base, and other US military presence.

Bahrain with ~700,000 Bahraini citizens (a total population ~1.5 million).It is important to note that the citizen population is majority Shia, ruled by a Sunni monarchy.

United Arab Emirates (UAE) with ~1.2 million Emirati citizens (a total population ~10 million). Al Dhafra Air Base, which hosts US F-35s and other aircraft. Also a key logistics hub at Fujairah port.

All of these countries, including that of Jordan's territory that they have essentially leased to the US for protection, would become a battlefield. They are powerless to prevent either the US from launching attacks from their soil or Iran from retaliating against them. The obliteration of these bases by Iran would cause massive collateral damage to surrounding areas, killing citizens, and destroying infrastructure. The US Navy's headquarters in Bahrain would be gone. The heart of CENTCOM in Qatar would be a crater. Their own small, well-equipped but ultimately symbolic militaries would be utterly useless. They are designed for internal security against uprisings and to fight alongside the US, not to defend against a barrage of Iranian ballistic missiles and drones.

In Bahrain, the Shia majority, which has long protested against the Sunni monarchy, would likely see Iran as a liberator for the agent of the regime's downfall. Massive, potentially violent uprisings would erupt.

In Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, Shia populations would face immense pressure and could rise up, creating a fifth column and uprisings.

The economies of all these vassal Monarchs would collapse. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a huge percentage of the world's oil and LNG (especially from Qatar) passes, would be a war zone, likely mined or targeted by Iran. Exports would cease immediately. The UAE (Dubai/Abu Dhabi) and Qatar have built themselves as safe, stable havens for finance, real estate, and business. A direct war would evaporate this status. Capital would flee, the stock market would crash, and the real estate bubble would burst. The entire "safe haven" brand of the Gulf would be destroyed forever. 

Politically the regimes in Bahrain and Kuwait would be at immediate risk of collapse, either through internal revolution or a change in the ruling family. They would be forced to completely sever their security relationship with the US and adopt a new foreign policy—one that is either subservient to Iran or that aligns with a new power  in a desperate bid for protection. Their "very existence" would no longer be dependent on the US because the US would have been proven to be a liability, not a protector. When the US bases are destroyed and the US is in a wider war with Iran, the US military would be too busy fighting to effectively protect the ruling families from their own people. The American security guarantee would be exposed as hollow at the very moment it was most needed.

All of them are acutely aware that in a direct US-Iran war, they would be the ones to pay the ultimate price. Their survival strategy is to keep the US close enough for protection, but not so close that they are dragged into an apocalyptic conflict. War scenario is their worst nightmare.

Let's continue with the world wide economic affect of the war; 

Unlike the previous "skirmishes" or "agreed upon limited strikes at each other", this time an attack on Iran will first be responded by closing the Straight of Hurmuz. The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow, 21-mile-wide channel between Oman and Iran through which a staggering amount of the world's daily oil supply flows and is the world's most important oil transit chokepoint. Approximately 20-30% of the world's total oil consumption passes through the Strait daily, which is roughly 20 million barrels of crude oil and condensates per day. This oil comes from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar. For these countries, it is the only practical way to get their product to global markets. Almost all of Qatar's liquefied natural gas (LNG), the world's largest LNG exporter, must pass through the Strait. This gas supplies major customers in Asia and Europe.

The effect of closing the Hurmuz would be an immediate and unprecedented supply shock world wide. The price of Brent Crude would not just double; it would likely spike to levels never seen before, possibly $200, $300, or even higher per barrel in the initial panic. Since oil is the lifeblood of the modern economy, the cost of everything that is transported or made with petroleum (which is nearly everything) would skyrocket. This includes food, plastics, pharmaceuticals, and all consumer goods. In a dialectically connected consequence the factories would stop, parts couldn't  be manufactured,  assembly lines stop everywhere in the world. Countries in the world would face skyrocketing inflation due to energy costs. This in return leads to "stagflation", a combination of stagnant growth and high inflation that is extremely difficult to fix.

The US and China would be forced to release massive amounts of oil from their Strategic Petroleum Reserves for emergencies which would be drawn down at a terrifying rate. If the closure lasted more than a few months, reserves could run dangerously low. China, as the world's largest oil importer, would face an existential energy crisis. Thus, its reaction could be unpredictable and destabilizing, potentially leading to aggressive moves to secure energy supplies elsewhere.

The US is in a very different position today than it was in the 20th century. It is not as directly dependent on Gulf oil as it once was. However, oil is a global, fungible commodity. Meaning that there is no such thing as "American oil" and "Asian oil" in a global market. If the price of Brent Crude (the global benchmark) spikes to $300 a barrel, the price of US oil will follow it up and the US gasoline prices would soar past $6, $7, or $8 a gallon. The cost of manufacturing, producing, and transporting goods and the prices to the consumer  would explode. The American consumer, the engine of the US economy, would be crushed by high gas prices and inflation plummeting the consumer confidence , halting the spending and thus causing a recession. The uncertainty and economic destruction would cause a massive stock market sell-off, wiping out trillions of dollars in wealth and pensions.

The US high-intensity naval war in the Gulf would cost billions of dollars a week and risk American lives. Meaning that being an energy producer, does not make US immune from the energy crises. The American economy would be hit by a massive inflationary recession, and its  military would be drawn into a dangerous and costly conflict the end result of which cannot be predicted.

Europe is far more dependent on imported energy than the US. Even before the Ukraine war, Europe relied on global markets for oil. A Hormuz closure would send already high energy prices into the stratosphere. Energy-intensive industries in Germany and France would face impossible energy bills. Factories would be forced to shut down or drastically reduce production. This would be a "de-industrializing" shock to the heart of the European economy. The combination of high inflation, soaring energy bills for homes and businesses, and a looming recession would create massive political and social unrest. Governments would fall or fascism will actively be  recalled due to the populist, anti-establishment, movements would gain massive traction as citizens blame their leaders for the economic collapse. Like the US, Europe would face stagflation. 

In conclusion the closure of the Strait of Hormuz would not be a simple disruption; it would be a systemic shock to the heart of the globalized economy which would trigger a global recession at some depression in others, hyperinflation in energy and consumer goods, strategic reserve depletion, and energy insecurity for all major powers all of which in return create a geopolitical instability, as nations scramble for resources pointing fingers to blame for the collapse.

Listening and reading the energy security experts and military strategists a war against Iran is a "doomsday scenario" for so many reasons in addition to this fundamental economic one.

Russia and China Factor

As I will be explaining in the next section;  a direct, conventional military defeat of Iran by the US and Israel is not a realistic strategic goal for the cost and complexity would be prohibitive. Therefore, the logical alternative is to attempt to shatter the state from within; a strategy of "regime change" through internal collapse. However for Iran's allies, Russia and China that brings about an existential interest in preventing that collapse.

Neither Russia nor China wants to be dragged into a direct hot war with the US. That's why their involvement  could be built on the concept of "asymmetric escalation" and "hybrid warfare"; providing just enough support to ensure Iran survives and bleeds the US/Israel. These supports can be outlined as; 

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance by Russians who already has a significant electronic eavesdropping presence in Syria and its naval base at Tartus. They would almost certainly share signals intelligence regarding Israeli Air Force movements and US naval deployments in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf.

China has a vast network of reconnaissance and communications satellites. While the US also has this, China could provide Iran with real-time imagery of US base build-ups, troop movements in the region, and naval fleet positioning, filling gaps in Iran's own intelligence. Cyberspace Coordination; a common intelligence picture would be shared, likely through back channels, allowing Iran to better anticipate the timing and scale of attacks.

Air Defense Means and Methods are  the most critical and immediate need for Iran. Russia could send a significant number of S-300PMU-2 systems (which Iran already operates) or even more advanced systems stripped of Russian markings. The real value would be in helping Iran integrate its disparate air defense systems (Russian, Chinese, domestic) into a cohesive, networked whole. Russian advisors could help Iran set up a more effective "layered defense" to challenge US air superiority, particularly against drones and cruise missiles.  Russia is a world leader in Electronic Warfare. They could provide advanced jamming systems to disrupt the guidance systems of US missiles and the data links of drones, a capability that would be highly valuable to Iran.

Directly shipping ballistic missiles from Russia to Iran during a hot war would be an enormous escalation. It's more likely that Russia and China would help Iran bypass sanctions to acquire the critical components it needs to manufacture its own missiles.  They could facilitate shipments of microelectronics, guidance systems, and specialized steel through third countries, ensuring Iran's domestic production lines for missiles and drones don't run dry. In a longer war, Russia might share technology from its own missile programs (like the Iskander) in exchange for data on how its systems perform against US/Israeli defenses, turning Iran into a live-fire testing ground.

What would be the core logic of Russia and China in supporting Iran other than preventing the collapse of Iran? 

For Russia, a US-Iran war is a massive gift to Moscow. It drains US attention, resources, and munitions away from Ukraine. It keeps oil prices high, funding its own war economy. It reinforces the narrative that the US is the global aggressor. They want this war to be a long, costly quagmire.

For China, the US is it's primary strategic competitor. A war with Iran is a war in America's "other" theater, diverting its focus from the Indo-Pacific. It also strengthens China's position as a reliable energy partner for Iran and disrupts US-backed alliances in the Middle East, creating a power vacuum China can fill economically.

So the delusion, the fantasy and wishful thinking that China and Russia will not be involved has no feet on the ground.

Strategic goals of US and the victory

First of all one has to define the term of victory in a war. Victory is not defined by the numbers of kill, or the scale of destruction one projected to the other, but by the achievement of strategic goal set for the waged war. What is the strategic goal of US-Israel for a war against Iran? So far they have been vague about the primary goal each time they spoke in order to conceal their primary goal -for which they themselves are not sure if it is achievable. 

Every critical minded person knows that it is not the issue of nuclear weapon which they claimed to have destroyed completely in their attack in June of last year. Besides, not only Iran says they are not after a nuclear weapon but even CIA-MI-6 confirms that there is no indication  of Iran's desire to have nuclear weapon.  

So the strategic goal is a government change in Iran with a puppet government. As for almost all of the objective military, political, academic experts and analyzers, the possibility of achieving that goal  is nil. US-West could not beat the Houthis in one of the poorest country in the world, Yemen. Neither militarily nor size and population wise Iran and Yemen are not comparable. That means US-Israel have no chance of achieving a government change in Iran through bombing and sending missiles -since there is no way of considering a land invasion of Iran.

Since a direct, conventional military defeat of Iran by the US and Israel is not a realistic strategic goal. The cost and complexity would be prohibitive. Therefore, the logical alternative is to attempt to shatter the state from within; a strategy of "regime change" through internal collapse;  a civil war in Iran which will facilitate the success of bombing campaign and cause heavy destruction of Iran.  So, the "only possible winning move" for the US-Israel, given Iran's conventional resilience, is to make the war too costly for the regime to survive internally; a classic strategy of "shock and Awe" to decapitate the state, followed by empowering internal elements to finish the job. They would target the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) command structure, leadership communication nodes, and the economic assets that fund the regime's patronage network.

Then what is it-to whom they are banking on as the internal elements to finish the job, and how delusional is that option?

As they have proven during the "riots" in Iran, they are banking on an uprising by the Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis and Arabs in Iran. The plan for a massive cyber and media campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Leader and the regime, using social media and proxies to encourage mass protests in major cities, to create a situation where the security forces are overstretched due to fighting Kurds in the west, Balochis in the southeast, and protests in every major city while simultaneously being decapitated by air strikes is down the drain because Iran has taken the measures for internet and social site use. 

As they have proven historically, US-Israel-West  prefer the destruction of proxy groups and people rather than that of their own. They are, with their fantasy and wishful thinking assuming that Russia and Iran will not be involved on the face of  a proxy civil war in their backyard. 

There are so many confirmed reports that China and Russia are already sharing intelligence information with Iran. I am not even going to mention the military aids in the form of air defense, satellites, expert liaisons etc. But I will mention the transportation of dozens of "attack helicopters" to Iran because those helicopters have no significance in a war with US-Israel but it has all the significance in suppressing any attempt for an uprising in certain regions. These helicopters are ideal for hunting insurgent groups in mountainous terrain (Kurdistan) or deserts (Baluchistan). They would also likely provide armored vehicles, small arms, and surveillance drones specifically for the IRGC and Law Enforcement Force (NAJA) to use against internal threats.

In addition; Russia has its own long history of dealing with insurgencies (Chechnya) and would have invaluable expertise to share on how to identify, infiltrate, and dismantle US-backed separatist networks. They could provide signals intelligence on communications between these groups and their foreign handlers. Small teams of Russian "security consultants" with experience in counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency would likely be embedded far from the front lines, helping to train and coordinate Iranian special forces tasked with hunting down separatist cells.

China is a world leader in digital control. They could provide Iran with the technology and expertise to monitor domestic internet traffic, identify protest organizers on Telegram, WhatsApp, and domestic platforms, and shut down communications used to coordinate uprisings. Internal Security Technology of China includes facial recognition software at checkpoints, surveillance drones over cities, and systems for predictive policing to identify potential flashpoints before they erupt.

These supports simply means that the Russian and Chinese are aware of such plot by US-Israel and helping Iran with the means to suppress any such adventure. That is aside from the fact that Iran is not expecting any land invasion adventure by US, and thus it is most likely that its military personnel in and around these regions are prepared for such an adventure. 

US-Israel hubris assumes that they are the only ones who are smart enough to plot, rest are stupid. Iran already had various experience in these regions and it would actually be stupid not to take the necessary precautions. However, they have proven to be vigilant and affective during the plotted "riots".

So their only alternative is playing on the wrong horses with those who have a history of playing at the wrong horses. Kurds in Iran do not have a homogenous structure; they are made up of different groups with different religion, different political aims, different language or dialect and different relations with the Iran government. Kurds are primarily located in the mountainous region along the Iraq and Turkey borders, called "Iranian Kurdistan" or "Rojhilat". Another significant community of Khorasani Kurds also resides in northeastern Iran. While most Kurds in Iran are Sunni Muslims, there are also significant populations of Shia Feyli Kurds. Kurdish political groups operate in exile or in the bordering Kurdish region of Iraq, not in Iran. 

Baloch people ethnic group residing in the southeastern and east regions of Iran share cultural ties with Baloch populations in neighboring Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are largely Sunni Muslims. They have more pressing problems with Pakistan yet better relations with Afghanistan who supports Iran against US-Israeli attacks.

The majority of Iranian Azerbaijanis are followers of Shia Islam.

As a conclusion, the external war would be a high-tech duel, with Russia and China acting as Iran's "quartermaster" and "intelligence agency," ensuring the military doesn't get completely overwhelmed. The internal war would be a brutal, shadowy affair in where Russia and China would act as the regime's protector guard, providing the tools of surveillance, internal repression, and counter-insurgency needed to crush the very uprisings that the US and Israel would be trying to spark.

For the US and Israel, the war can easily be a failure since most of their strategic alternatives to break the regime's hold on power seems to be hopeless.  Subjugation (conquering and occupying Iran) would require a land invasion on a scale not seen since World War II. The US simply does not have ground troops, political will, or the logistical capacity for it. "Regime change" is technically possible via strikes, but as we discussed, it requires an internal force to fill the vacuum. However, the US/Israel cannot create that internal force; they can only try to empower it because  Russia-China-Iran bloc is actively building firewalls against that internal collapse. Starting a "long-term civil war" is plausible, but "manageable" is the wrong word. They could light the spark, but Iran, Russia, and China have significant capacity to contain and even destroy it..

My deduction from the developments and listening, reading so many experts is that "the war against Iran is NOT imminent unless Israel pulls a provocative action from its sleeves. 

Under current conditions, neither US nor Israel has the military power to subjugate Iran, to change government or even to  start a long term civil war in Iran. For Neo-Cons such a war is a double edged sword with devastating economic, political, and military consequences. A war with Iran is designed to solve one problem (the "Iranian threat" to Israel and US hegemony) but would create a dozen new, catastrophic ones. It would shatter the global economy , bog the US down in another Middle Eastern war, potentially trigger a wider war with Russia-China by proxy, and destroy the very Gulf allies it claims to protect. For a Neo-Con agenda that seeks to project power and stabilize the region under US-friendly regimes, a war with Iran is an act of self-sabotage.

Any loss of US ships, planes, military personnel will be seen world at large as a "defeat" regardless of the scale of damage they cause to Iran. It will shatter the myth of US military's invincibility and expose the US vulnerability of its military  (Houthis actually has proven so). For months, a non-state actor, Houthis, with drones and missiles has effectively shut down a major waterway, forced US carrier groups into defensive postures, and engaged in a direct firefight with the world's most powerful navy. The perception is not that the US can't win, but that it is being drawn into a costly, endless skirmish it cannot decisively win. This has already chipped away at the aura of invincibility.

The "unknown unknown" is the possibility of an Israel provocation to drag the "indecisive" US in to the war. I personally believe the possibility of it as an exception, yet I see it very unlikely if I base my analysis in Leninist state and imperialism (Finance capital) theory.  In a Leninist framework, the state is not an independent actor but the executive committee of the bourgeoisie, specifically, in the US context, the committee of finance capital. The primary interest of finance capital (Wall Street, multinational corporations, global investment funds) is stability, predictability, and the free flow of capital and trade. A war with Iran is the antithesis of this. It would spike oil prices, crash markets, destroy supply chains, and introduce radical uncertainty. This is bad for business. Therefore, Israel cannot simply "drag" the US in. The US ruling class, in its dominant fraction, will resist being dragged into a war that destroys the very conditions for its own accumulation. The tail (Israel) cannot wag the dog (the US capitalist state) if the dog knows it will fall off a cliff.

I stated the "possibility of unknown unknown as an exception" because politics is not a perfect science. The question is whether the faction pushing for war can, in a moment of crisis (real or manufactured by Israel), create a situation where the costs of not intervening appear to the US ruling class to be even greater than the catastrophic costs of intervening. This is the gamble standing on a double edged sword. The danger lies in the gap between the rational interests of the US capitalist state and the potentially irrational actions of its most volatile ally.

The most likely end would be a typical one in which the US could find a "face saving exit" path with sufficient "reasons" for Trump to "declare victory out of defeat". Trump is an expert on declaring victory out of defeats, out of "peace agreements" that never was, or peace treaty he never was involved. They may be able to set the ground for such an exit.

Currently, considering all the options for both side, it's a stalemate that both sides have an interest in ending the conflict. The US has the military power to cause immense damage, but not to achieve its political goals (regime change, subjugation). Iran has the power to make the war unbearably costly (Hormuz, asymmetric attacks, drone barrages), but not to expel the US from the region entirely. In such a stalemate, the only rational outcome is a negotiated off-ramp. The alternative is a slow bleed that serves no one's long-term interests. A  "Face-Saving Exit" wouldn't be a formal surrender. It would be a series of tacit agreements and public narratives, likely brokered by a third party . That would give Trump a narrative he loves; "I ended another disastrous Middle East war. I brought our boys home. I made Iran back down. They didn't sink our ships. They didn't close the Strait. I won." And gives Iran the narrative that "We withstood the full force of the US and Israeli military. We bled them. We exposed their weakness. We defended our sovereignty. We forced the American Empire to retreat. We won."

Of course this is contingent on the "unknown unknown"; if Israel had not succeeded in dragging the US into a full-scale war, and the conflict remained limited, the face-saving exit is the most likely outcome. The US ruling class (finance capital) would reassert itself and demand an end to the instability. If Israel had succeeded in provoking a wider war, the exit becomes harder but still necessary. The US would have to find a way to disentangle itself from an ally's disastrous adventure while still maintaining the appearance of alliance. This is where the tension between the "Israel-first" faction and the "finance capital" faction would reach its peak. 

A war with Iran is a trap that even its proponents cannot easily escape, and that the most likely outcome is a political mirage of victory.

Thus, under current concrete conditions the most likely logical end is not a grand, decisive battle, but a political and rhetorical sleight of hand. The war would be "waged and won" not on the battlefield, but in a press conference, where a president declares that the chaos has ended and he has triumphed. In most cases  in our modern era, "victory" is often just a well-crafted story told to a war-weary public.  And having control over the means of mental production, US-Israel has the vast experience and upper hand in "declaring victory over defeats". 

Erdogan A
February 21, 2026