"The new geopolitical upheavals in the Middle East as a bet on American monopoly."
"The new geopolitical upheavals in the Middle East as a bet on American monopoly"
By Dimitris Papadogiannis
"Import"
The unfolding military confrontation in the most conflict-prone geographical artery on the planet is coming to seal the already existing geopolitical fluidity that has prevailed worldwide in recent years. However, its most critical parameters are its unpredictable outcome and the fact that the developments this time directly affect our country, since they are occurring on its doorstep.
«At the core of the Iran-Israeli-American camp conflict"
As is already known, on the last day of February, the coalition of the United States and Israel attacked Iran with unprecedented ferocity, initially carrying out a "decapitation" operation targeting the leadership of Tehran, including the country's supreme religious leader, which nevertheless did not suffice to limit Persia's military capabilities. Instead, it led to a bloodbath mainly for the civilian population, resulting in anger and retaliation on the part of the new Iranian leadership and the involvement of a large number of neighboring Arab states, mainly through missile strikes against American bases there. However, the incident, which many overlooked, is that the American and Israeli attack began before the negotiation processes in Geneva were officially completed, which were nevertheless marked by strong disagreements in the most major areas of the dispute between the US and Iran. The sword of Damocles of the realistic reading of events forces us to emphasize that certain American demands were unrealistic, as the American delegation set as a condition for concluding an agreement the abandonment of Iran's ballistic program, in addition to its nuclear program. Such a demand is tantamount to partial demilitarization, something that no country in the world could accept. Furthermore, this time in contrast to the 12-day summer war, America and Israel have set as their goal regime change in Tehran, instrumentalizing part of the Iranian people in this direction, as well as the complete elimination of its missile capabilities. Therefore, the purpose of the American military operation differs and for this reason, its duration is questionable. It is worth noting that Iran will attempt to drag the US into a war of attrition precisely because it is unable to directly compete with their power on the battlefield. The so-called unorthodox war, which includes hybrid attacks on American territory, an attempt to saturate American and Israeli defense systems through the aggressive launch of swarms of unmanned aircraft. The purpose of this method of warfare is to transform a lightning-fast campaign into a costly, protracted conflict, a historical nightmare for any superpower. Additionally, the United States and the state of Israel are betting, as we have predicted, on support for their goals from Iranian society in the wake of the widespread anti-government protests of last January. Nevertheless, the indiscriminate bombing of any infrastructure carries the strong possibility that the country's public opinion will become dissatisfied and rally around its leadership, especially if it feels an existential threat. Therefore, attackers are likely to lose a vital strategic asset. Furthermore, information has recently been released by several foreign news agencies that the CIA is inciting the Iraqi Kurds to attack military installations on the border with Iran, also using them as a lever for destabilization. Additionally, this war may enjoy the verbal and moral support of most European allies, but at the same time it has also caused a serious rift within the Western alliance, after Spain expressed strong disagreement regarding the use of American bases on its territory for airstrikes against Iran.
"The role of the Chinese dragon, the position of the Russian bear and the economic consequences of war"
It is clear that the other two powerful actors in the international community have reacted lukewarmly so far, without negating their potential behind-the-scenes action, through the use of satellites to collect data that help Iran achieve precision strikes on American bases in the wider region. It is worth noting that a few weeks ago Chinese satellite reconnaissance devices were seen flying over Israeli and American camps. The limitation of Russia and China, at least for the moment, to verbal condemnation of the American intervention is due to the absence of any formal agreement between the two countries and Iran in the field of mutual defense. Furthermore, the Russian Federation is employing a large number of its forces and resources on the Ukrainian front, and China does not wish to take a direct part in a military conflict at the moment in order to maintain its economic stability. In addition, China holds large reserves of Iranian oil, as Iran is its main supplier. To fully understand the current events, Trump’s campaign against Persia also contains a deeper – long-term goal: an attempt to economically weaken China, by forcing Tehran to impose a naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz. In this way, he would at least temporarily paralyze the vital supply chain for “black gold”, dealing a serious strategic “slap” to Beijing. On the other hand, this development would benefit the other major oil exporter, Russia, in many ways, as China would resort there to replenish its reserves. Additionally, a prolonged closure of the straits in question would cause serious shortages in the global oil trade, with the natural consequence of price increases for this good and causing substantial economic disruptions, which would have a long-term impact, even on the US, given that the Revolutionary Guards would mainly target ships of American interests. However, in a case where the Tehran regime was facing a certain overthrow, China and Russia are expected to intervene more vigorously in order to defend their strongest pole of influence in the Middle East.
"Risks for the national security of Greece and Cyprus"
With the start of the war, the Iranian administration announced that it would bomb every military base of the US or its war subscribers, effectively targeting Cyprus with unmanned aircraft that took off from Lebanese territory. The Greek government reacted immediately, by sending F-16 fighter jets. From a realistic and strategic point of view, we could not act differently in the midst of a war crisis. However, Cyprus should not be far away when it comes to Turkish threat and aggression respectively. In other words, we are touching on the hypocritical attitude that led to the use of the doctrine of the single defense area, to be activated at will and then forgotten again. In the current phase, Hellenism must follow steps of extreme caution, focusing on its exclusive security and not turning into a ship of foreign interests, leading our homeland into the tangled rocks of a confrontation that does not directly concern us. We must emphasize that at times we have found ourselves trapped in foreign wars, which, based on a realpolitik approach, have not brought Greece any national gain, nor an upgrade of our role on the international stage.
"The challenges within the US and the ideological mutation of Trumpism"
The US president's decision to take military action against Iran was politically reckless, as he did not keep a major campaign promise, namely not starting new wars. As a result, the latest developments have damaged his communications profile, leading to the loss of support from the base of the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement, which has prioritized the US's abstention from foreign military conflicts as its primary demand. In fact, if the human losses for Americans increase or sabotage attacks occur on American territory, dissatisfaction with him will intensify, which will likely lead to the defeat of the Republicans in the midterm elections. Finally, it is a common secret that the Trump administration is also led mainly in foreign policy matters by the neoconservative faction, whose core agenda is intervention with the aim of regime change in countries hostile to America. The notable difference between the cold strategy of Trumpism and the other neoconservatives, who act as guardians of globalism, is the following: The former acts openly, in terms of geopolitical cynicism, while the latter have for decades clothed their economic and geostrategic goals with a liberal-humanitarian cloak, in order to give their policy a moral dimension, of course false within it. In conclusion, the unprecedented American aggression in a group of countries around the world testifies to the maximalist obsession of the US to maintain its hegemonic position and to save the unipolar structure, in an international society that is gradually transforming from unipolar to multipolar.
Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/03/05/trump-iran-kurds-iraq/