US-Israeli War on Iran: A Decade of Geopolitical Collapse and Human Cost
On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes against Iran, marking the beginning of a full-scale war that has already reshaped the Middle East and beyond. The conflict, which has displaced millions and killed thousands, is not an isolated event but the culmination of decades of escalating tensions, failed diplomacy, and structural geopolitical forces. As the war enters its second month, the human toll—destroyed infrastructure, mass displacement, and the collapse of everyday life—has become undeniable. Yet beneath the immediate devastation lies a deeper crisis: the erosion of regional stability, the failure of containment strategies, and the unintended consequences of a war that was decades in the making.
— ### The War’s Roots: A Decade of Failed Containment
The current conflict did not emerge in a vacuum. For over two decades, US and Israeli policy toward Iran has been guided by two interlocking assumptions: first, that Iran represents the primary destabilizing force in the Middle East, and second, that military confrontation is the only viable solution to containing its influence. These beliefs were solidified in the aftermath of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, when Iran’s regional ambitions—whether framed as a “Shia Crescent” or support for proxy networks—became a central preoccupation of Washington and Jerusalem.
President George W. Bush’s 2002 “Axis of Evil” speech, which explicitly named Iran as a threat, set the stage for a bipartisan consensus in US policy. Even the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which temporarily eased sanctions in exchange for limits on Iran’s nuclear program, was undermined by its opponents. When President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, he reinstated crippling sanctions, arguing that Iran remained a persistent threat. Meanwhile, Israel, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had long framed Iran’s nuclear program as an existential danger, despite repeated assessments by the US intelligence community and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons.
Netanyahu’s persistent warnings—often lacking concrete evidence—kept the issue alive in public discourse, positioning military confrontation as an inevitable necessity. By the time of the 2026 strikes, the structural forces pushing toward war had become irreversible. The US policy establishment, conditioned by decades of containment rhetoric, saw confrontation as the only way to “solve” regional instability. Yet, as scholars like Kevin Schwartz of the Oriental Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences argue, this approach ignored the deeper political and economic crises plaguing the region, instead treating Iran as a monolithic threat rather than a complex state with its own internal dynamics.
— ### The Myth of Precision: How Sanctions and Bombs Targeted Civilians
The US and Israeli campaign against Iran has relied heavily on the rhetoric of “precision warfare”—the claim that strikes are surgically targeted to avoid civilian casualties. Yet the reality on the ground tells a different story. Since the war began, Iranian cities have been subjected to relentless airstrikes, not just on military targets but on critical infrastructure: hospitals, electricity grids, water systems, and residential neighborhoods. As of April 2026, over 1,500 civilians have been killed, more than three million displaced, and tens of thousands of homes and economic infrastructures destroyed.
This approach is not new. Decades of sanctions—framed as “smart” and “targeted”—have already reshaped Iran’s political economy, deepening class and gender inequalities while collapsing the means of social reproduction. The current bombing campaign is a direct continuation of this strategy, as Asma Abdi, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Exeter, explains. The language of “targetedness” serves to obscure the collective punishment being inflicted on Iranian society. “What becomes apparent from the scale and pattern of bombing,” she writes, “is that We see the very conditions of life and futurity that are being targeted.”
The destruction extends beyond Iran’s borders. In Lebanon, Israel’s seventh invasion since 2006 has mirrored its tactics in Gaza: assassinations, indiscriminate bombardment, and the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure. As of April 2026, over 930 Lebanese have been killed, including 111 children and 38 healthcare workers. The Lebanese army, already weakened by years of underfunding and political paralysis, has been unable to prevent Israeli incursions or protect its citizens. The result is a humanitarian catastrophe that threatens to unravel Lebanon’s fragile post-civil war political order.
Maya Mikdashi, an associate professor at Rutgers University, describes the current conflict as part of a broader strategy of “permanent war,” where Israel seeks to dominate not just Palestine but its neighboring states through military pressure and economic strangulation. “Israel is targeting Lebanon’s social fabric,” she writes, “inflicting mass punishment to weaken public support for Hezbollah—a strategy it also pursued unsuccessfully during the 2006 war.” The goal appears to be the creation of a “demilitarized and depopulated zone” in southern Lebanon, similar to the buffer zones Israel has imposed in Gaza.
— ### Regional Fallout: Gulf States Betrayed, Afghanistan Ignored
The war has also exposed the fragility of regional alliances and the limits of US influence. Gulf states, which had long relied on US military protection, found themselves caught in the crossfire. Oman, which had served as a mediator between Washington and Tehran, warned against the strikes, but its pleas were ignored. The UAE and Qatar, despite their normalization agreements with Israel, have been accused by Israeli media of supporting Iran—a claim both countries deny. Meanwhile, the US military’s depleted missile stockpiles, exhausted during the 12-day war with Iran in June 2025, left Gulf states vulnerable to retaliation.
Elham Fakhro, a research fellow at Harvard’s Belfer Center, notes that the war has forced Gulf states to reconsider their dependence on US security guarantees. “The question now confronting the region,” she writes, “is what could replace a security model that has shaped the region for decades.” The answer may lie in greater regional cooperation, but political will remains uncertain. In the meantime, the economic damage—billions in lost revenue from disrupted oil flows and damaged infrastructure—has already taken a toll.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan—often framed by US policymakers as a cautionary tale of military overreach—has been largely ignored in Western coverage of the Iran war. Yet the conflict is deeply connected to Afghanistan’s fate. Iran hosts over six million Afghan refugees, many of whom live in precarious conditions and are increasingly scapegoated for economic grievances. The war has also disrupted Afghanistan’s trade routes, particularly through Iran’s Chabahar port, which became a critical lifeline after Pakistan’s closure of its borders. As Marya Hannun, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Exeter, points out, the simultaneous escalation between Afghanistan and Pakistan—where cross-border airstrikes have killed hundreds—highlights how these wars are intertwined. “For states and peoples in South and Central Asia,” she writes, “these conflicts are not playing out as separate events.”
— ### The IRGC’s Rise: Chaos as a Tool of Statecraft
Within Iran, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has emerged as the dominant force in the government’s response to the war. Established in 1979 amid post-revolutionary chaos, the IRGC initially operated as a decentralized militia, known for its flexibility and direct action. The Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) further cemented its role, as the IRGC prolonged the conflict through unconventional tactics, ensuring its relevance even as Iran’s regular military professionalized.
Today, the IRGC’s grip on power is unassailable. It controls key economic sectors, evades sanctions through illicit networks, and serves as the primary enforcer of the regime’s security apparatus. Maryam Alemzadeh, an associate professor at the Oxford School of Global and Area Studies, argues that the current war has only strengthened the IRGC’s position. “The urgency of the war has once again justified the IRGC hardliners’ radical, aggressive approach,” she writes. With Mojtaba Khamenei, the IRGC’s preferred candidate, now positioned to succeed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the organization is poised to shape Iran’s future trajectory—whether through further confrontation or a negotiated ceasefire.
Yet the IRGC’s dominance comes at a cost. Its decentralized and often reckless tactics have led to significant losses, including the death of key commanders. Despite these setbacks, the IRGC remains the backbone of Iran’s resistance, ensuring that the regime’s survival is tied to its ability to endure—and retaliate.
— ### The Illusion of Divine Mandate: Evangelicals and the War’s Moral Justification
In the United States, the war has been framed by some evangelical leaders as part of a “divine plan.” Pastor Greg Laurie, for instance, has linked the conflict to biblical prophecy, warning of Iran’s supposed Islamic threat. Yet, as Melani McAlister, a professor at George Washington University, notes, this apocalyptic rhetoric is waning among younger evangelicals, who are less invested in prophecy-driven Christian Zionism. Instead, support for Israel among evangelicals today is increasingly tied to broader ideological and partisan alignment rather than religious doctrine.
Meanwhile, the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), a rapidly growing network of charismatic-Pentecostal churches, has emerged as a powerful force in shaping evangelical foreign policy. While its leaders remain pro-Israel, their focus is less on biblical prophecy and more on worldly power—whether in government, business, or media. As McAlister explains, this shift reflects broader changes within evangelicalism, where support for Israel is now more about political loyalty than theological conviction.
Yet, despite these internal divisions, evangelical influence on US policy remains significant. The current war has been framed not just as a geopolitical necessity but as a moral crusade—a narrative that has helped sustain bipartisan support for military action against Iran.
— ### A War Without End: The Human Cost and Uncertain Future
The immediate human cost of the war is staggering. In Iran, hospitals and schools have been destroyed, water supplies contaminated, and entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble. In Lebanon, displacement has reached crisis levels, with over a million people forced from their homes. The environmental damage—from toxic fallout in Tehran to the destruction of desalination plants—will have long-term consequences for generations to come.
Toby Jones and Andrew Bruno, historians at Rutgers University, describe the war as a deliberate attack on “everyday life.” “US and Israeli militarism has been destroying infrastructure and the material conditions of life for millions in the Middle East for decades,” they write. “The current war adds spectacularly to the ledger and assures more harm is to come for ordinary people.”
Yet, despite the devastation, there are signs of resilience. In Iran, grassroots movements—feminist, student, and labor groups—have long challenged the regime’s authority. Peyman Jafari, an assistant professor at William & Mary, warns that while bombs may not bring democracy, they also cannot extinguish the demand for social justice. “The only path forward,” he argues, “is for domestic activists to organize, divide the ruling elite, and unite the population.”
For now, however, the war continues unabated. The US and Israel show no signs of backing down, while Iran’s retaliation—through drones, missiles, and proxy attacks—has only intensified. The Gulf states, Afghanistan, and Lebanon all face uncertain futures, caught in the crossfire of a conflict that was decades in the making. As the war grinds on, one thing is clear: the human cost will be measured not just in lives lost but in the erosion of stability, the collapse of infrastructure, and the destruction of hope for generations to come.
