History is once again breaking in the Middle East. The large-scale military operation launched by the US and Israel against Iran is not just a war against one country. It is part of a larger geopolitical engineering that has been long in the making. It is the staging of a strategy that masquerades as diplomacy, but whose ultimate goal is military and political realignment.
The picture that emerged on the first day of this war is revealing enough on its own: Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior military and political cadres were targeted, many provinces of the country were bombarded simultaneously, and civilian settlements were hit alongside military installations. The bombing of a girls“ school in southern Iran, which killed dozens of children, demonstrated once again how the ”surgical operation" narrative of modern warfare is a big lie.
The technical language of modern warfare has become a veil that hides the moral responsibility for death.
Decapitation Strategy: Destroying the State's Brain
The military doctrine of this attack is quite clear: “decapitation strike”, a strategy of decapitation. The aim is to eliminate not only the military capacity but also the decision-making machinery of the state. By targeting the political leadership, the military command and the security bureaucracy, it is assumed that the state structure will soon collapse.
This method has been applied in many countries in the last two decades. In Iraq, this is how the regime of Saddam Hussein collapsed. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi was targeted. But what emerged from these operations was not a democratic order, but the disintegration of state authority and prolonged chaos.
It has been observed that when states are decapitated, societies are not liberated, but often disintegrate.
False Reality: The Propaganda Phase of War
Every war starts in the minds. Before military operations can begin, public opinion must be prepared. The method used for this is not new: creating threat narratives.
The rhetoric used about Iran today is striking. The claims that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, preparing intercontinental missiles and threatening the world are constantly repeated. However, this discourse has a very familiar example in recent history.
Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the world public opinion was told the same thing: Saddam Hussein's regime allegedly had weapons of mass destruction. This claim was presented as the most important justification for the war. The invasion took place, Iraq was destroyed, hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives. Then it turned out that those weapons never existed.
This reveals a fundamental mechanism of imperial interventions: reality is often reconstructed before the war.
Fear is created, the threat is magnified, propaganda is spread. Then military intervention is legitimized.
Was Diplomacy a Deception?
The timing of the Iran attack is also noteworthy. This is because the operation took place at a time when nuclear negotiations between Iran and the West were ongoing. It was rumored that the parties were very close to an agreement in the talks, which were being conducted through Oman.
This raises the question: Is diplomacy really a search for a solution, or is it a way of buying time for military action?
In the history of the Middle East, diplomacy has often been part of the preparation for war, not real peace. While negotiations are taking place at the table, military plans are being prepared. War scenarios are finalized while peace messages are given to the public.
This is why diplomacy in the Middle East is often a preface to war, not peace.
Iran's New Strategy: From Strategic Patience to Active Warfare
For many years, Iran has practiced a doctrine of “strategic patience” instead of direct war. Regional proxy forces, diplomatic maneuvers and limited retaliation were the main tools of this policy.
But the latest attack has changed Iran's military approach.
Tehran is no longer an actor merely defending its territory. American bases in the Gulf have been targeted and military assets in the region have come under direct attack. The threat to close the Strait of Hormuz is a move that will directly affect the global energy system.
A significant part of the world oil trade passes through this narrow passage. Therefore, a war with Iran could affect the fate of not only the Middle East but also the global economy.
Regime Change Project
Simultaneously with the military offensive, another front has been opened: psychological and political warfare.
The US administration's appeals to the Iranian people, the mobilization of opposition movements in exile and the discussions on transitional governance show that this war has not only a military but also a political objective.
The rhetoric of regime change is one of the most frequently used arguments of imperial interventions. The same discourse was used in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
But historical experience is clear: regime change brought about by foreign intervention does not produce democracy. They often produce state collapse, civil war and prolonged instability.
Iraq still bears the scars of war today. Afghanistan has returned to Taliban rule after two decades of war. Libya continues to exist as a fragmented country.
The Economics of War: The Cost of Death
War is not only a political issue; it is also an economic mechanism. Every bomb, every missile, every fighter jet is the result of a huge industrial production.
The arms industry is one of the most profitable in the world. The great powers often test their weapons in wars in third world countries. These wars are also a showcase for the marketing of new weapons.
Rich countries sell weapons while poor countries fight.
The cost of war is ironically calculated in terms of human lives. When the cost of bombs, the cost of airplanes and the cost of operations are calculated, the result is that war is always expensive, but this expensive cost does not benefit the people who die.
The winners of war are often not those who fight on the front lines, but those who produce weapons.
The Endless Cycle of the Middle East
A look at the last two decades in the Middle East reveals a clear pattern. The process started with the invasion of Iraq and continued with the Syrian civil war, the disintegration of Libya and the Yemen crisis.
Today's targeting of Iran is the new link in this chain.
Regional states are being weakened, political structures are fragmenting and borders are becoming increasingly contested.
This process is not only a military strategy; it also means reshaping the global balance of power.
Turkey's Difficult Balance
The implications of this war are also critical for Turkey. Although Ankara tries to use a balanced language in its diplomatic statements, geographical realities make this balance difficult.
Turkey is located right next to this huge area of conflict in the Middle East. Military bases such as Incirlik and Kürecik could bring regional tensions to a point where they could directly affect Turkey.
The potential consequences of war are not limited to the security dimension. New waves of migration, energy crises and economic shocks could directly affect Turkey.
Democracy does not come with bombs
One of the most common arguments used by those defending the legitimacy of war is the rhetoric of “bringing democracy”. But the simple truth of modern history is that democracy does not come with bombers.
Democracy develops through the internal dynamics of societies.
Foreign interventions often create greater instability rather than topple authoritarian regimes.
Therefore, the failures or repressive policies of the regime in Iran cannot be used to justify foreign intervention.
The fact that one regime is repressive does not give another state the right to bomb cities.
World of Killers
The tragedy of the Middle East is that it is often caught between two different powers. Authoritarian regimes on one side and imperial interventions on the other.
In between are the peoples.
Murderers sometimes kill each other. But innocent people always pay the price of war.
One murderer killing another murderer does not make the world a fairer place.
Conclusion The Beginning of a New Storm
The death of Ali Khamenei or the targeting of the leadership structure in Iran is not the end of this process. On the contrary, it could be the beginning of a much bigger geopolitical storm.
The Middle East is being reshaped. The balance of power is shifting. International law is being violated more and more.
A world order where the powerful do what they want produces chaos, not security.
The war that started in Iran today could affect the fate of not just one country but the entire region.
And history teaches us this:
When the gates of hell open, civilians, not generals, will be the first to enter.