Introduction

In the wake of the recent military action by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of the fundamental questions is the examination of the causes and motivations behind this aggression amidst the process of serious negotiations. Answering this question, beyond identifying the motives of the aggressor parties, can help clarify their true objectives and prevent the recurrence of similar actions in the future. In this report, seven main factors are analytically explained. 

1. Psychological and Personality Traits of Donald Trump

Trump’s behavior indicates a strong desire for attention, an inability to accept defeat, and prominent signs of megalomania. He acts greedily and without caution in undertaking risky and large-scale actions. Believing that he could achieve a decisive victory in a short-term war against Iran, he entered the conflict, testing a forty-year-old hatred. During his first term, he turned this instinctual feeling into policy: withdrawing from the JCPOA (described as one of the worst agreements in US history), intensifying sanctions, and assassinating General Qasem Soleimani in January 2020, despite warnings from many advisors. In his second term, Trump adopted a more personal approach based on the logic of "preemption" (getting the other side before they get you), initiating the war. He viewed everything personally and, disregarding national security considerations, sought personal retribution. 

2. Geopolitical Rivalries and Energy Components

Trump intended to weaken the axis of Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea and disrupt Iran’s cheap oil sales to China. He cited Iran’s oil exports to China as a threat to US energy interests. Contrary to the common perception that Benjamin Netanyahu was the primary instigator, the war with Iran became an independent objective for Trump, particularly in his second term, with Netanyahu playing merely a supportive and encouraging role. With the onset of the war, the US and Israel found themselves in a quagmire from which exit is difficult. This war provided a historical opportunity for Iran to showcase its regional power and turn the Strait of Hormuz into a lever of pressure against the US. 

3. Performative Diplomacy

Trump never sought calm diplomacy or gradual pressure; he always preferred a decisive and visible display of power to demonstrate US strength to the world and minimize the risk calculations of enemies. In the aggression against Iran, some believe Iran was merely a "stage," and the primary audiences were Russia, China, and other countries that had long emphasized the decline of the US. However, the outcome of the war changed the global perception of American superpower status. Now, among politicians and even the American public, there is a growing sense that the US no longer possesses its usual power and is in decline.

4. Misjudgment of Iran’s Weakness and the Assumption of an Easy Victory (Inspired by the Venezuela Experience)

The US believed that despite sanctions and heavy economic pressures, Iran was in a fragile state. The Venezuela experience, which led to regime change in five days, reinforced the assumption that the Islamic Republic would also collapse. Trump believed that by assassinating the Supreme Leader and military heads, he could change the regime. However, this assessment was a strategic miscalculation. Iran not only remained stable but also enhanced its authority and international standing. The result of this error was the US becoming trapped in a "geopolitical earthquake." 

5. The Role of Israel and Netanyahu: The US and the Stability of Israeli Hegemony in the Region

The Zionist regime has faced ineptitude in resolving the Iran issue, and its military operations in the region have been weakened. The reality is that the ruling class in the United States, with bipartisan consensus, supports Israel’s actions because they view them as aligned with US capitalist interests. Since the 1960s, the US has supported the Zionist project as a proxy force in the Middle East to conduct counter-insurgency operations against Arab socialist movements and national liberation struggles. Israel is not a conventional "ally" of the US but rather an "aggressive dog" and proxy force that allows the US to distance itself and deny responsibility for war crimes. Regarding Iran, Netanyahu played an effective role in encouraging Trump to commit military aggression amidst serious negotiations, an action that imposed significant material and moral costs on the US. 

6. The Jeffrey Epstein Case and the Effort to Divert Public Opinion

The Jeffrey Epstein case, which quickly turned into a global scandal, is a symbol of structural corruption, the immunity of the ruling class, and hidden power networks in America. This case goes far beyond a typical criminal investigation, showing how political, financial, cultural, and intelligence elites evade legal and social scrutiny. Global media portrayed it as "moral decay" rather than a systematic critique of capitalism. The Epstein case sparked public anger at the immunity of the ruling class, but power structures remained intact. Trump and his administration attempted to weaken the release of documents related to the case, labeling it a "Democratic trick." Under such conditions, the start of the war against Iran can be interpreted as an attempt to divert public opinion from this scandal and obscure the presence of powerful figures in the case. 

7. Domestic Political Issues (Political Lifeline)

Trump’s actions have had significant impacts on US domestic politics, particularly on the federal budget, taxes, and foreign trade. The war with Iran occurred while US domestic politics were in decline. Trump sought a way out of this dilemma through an agreement. With the midterm elections in November approaching, prolonged wars pose a risk of further damage to the US economy, while the economy has always been the primary concern of voters. According to most indicators, the US has not been successful in achieving its war objectives. Most Americans (except for the loyal MAGA base) oppose Trump’s actions in Iran, and Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans condemn them. In a "no-agreement" scenario, Trump’s position is at risk: rising gas prices, disruption of shipping in the Persian Gulf, decline in agricultural products, and damage to financial markets. Such a scenario poses a serious threat to Republican midterm votes and even to weakening Trump’s loyal base. Therefore, any attempt to reach an agreement will be shaped by domestic pressures, and the US will likely be forced to make more concessions.

 Conclusion

Trump’s military action against Iran was the result of a complex interaction of psychological factors (megalomania, retribution), geopolitical rivalries (weakening the Iran-Russia-China axis and controlling energy routes), performative diplomacy (showing power to global audiences), misjudgment of Iran’s fragility (inspired by Venezuela), the structural role of Israel as a proxy force, efforts to divert from the Epstein scandal, and the exigencies of a crisis-ridden US domestic politics. The result of this war has not been the consolidation of US hegemony, but rather the weakening of its international image, the intensification of domestic crises, and the recognition of Iran as a dominant power in West Asia.

Kimia Takht Rawanchi, Political Analyst

 (The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)