Summary of Key Points
This news article outlines the evolution of the Middle East crisis from 2023 to the potential U.S.-Iranian war in 2026: The Hamas attack on Israel triggered a chain of conflicts, which Israel used as an opportunity to weaken the "Shiite Arc" supported by Iran. In February 2026, the United States launched a war against Iran due to a surge in its missile inventory (which was seen as a safeguard for its nuclear program) and internal turmoil in Iran. After senior Iranian leaders were targeted, the hard-line faction came to power and demonstrated its determination for a long-term confrontation through personnel changes and military deployments. The Trump administration in the United States faced strategic difficulties due to its indecisive stance, risking the loss of control over the Persian Gulf, with allies beginning to seek other protectors.
1. U.S.-Iranian War: Iran's Missile Production as a Threat to Its Nuclear Program
The direct reason for the U.S. attack on Iran in 2026 was Iran's rapid missile production. According to U.S. Secretary of State Rubio, Iran produces more than 100 ballistic missiles per month and has amassed a large number of drones, which can protect its nuclear program. If Iran continues to expand its military capabilities, it will be too late to stop it from developing nuclear weapons ("the window of opportunity" would be closed). Additionally, Iran was experiencing internal problems such as high inflation, rising food prices, and a depreciating currency; large-scale protests erupted at the end of 2025, which Trump saw as an opportune time to take action.
2. Iran's Resolute Counteraction: Leadership Changes and Military Preparations
On the first day of the war, senior Iranian leaders (including Khamenei) were targeted and killed, but pre-established contingency plans were immediately activated:
- Major Personnel Changes: The hard-line Revolutionary Guard took control, with a loyalist named Rezaee appointed to head the Supreme National Security Council to coordinate all security affairs. The military command system was consolidated under Ali Abbasadi, and Azmayeri, with 13 years of experience in the Strait of Hormuz, was promoted to naval commander to deal with the U.S. fleet.
- Comprehensive Military Deployments: Iran cleared anti-Iranian forces across the border in Kurdish areas (where the U.S. had hoped to use the Kurds as local proxies); it sent advisors to assist the Houthi rebels in the Red Sea; it took control of Hezbollah in Lebanon and promised post-war support; and it dispatched units to Iraq to reinforce Shiite militias.
These actions were not signs of compromise but rather a show of readiness for a prolonged confrontation with the United States.
3. The U.S.'s Dilemma: Trump's Indecisive Policy and Alliances Shifting
Trump's approach to the war was opportunistic and inconsistent. For example, his attempts to blockade the Strait of Hormuz were ineffective. His former Iran envoy Abrams criticized Trump for threatening "total destruction" one moment and then taking no action the next, leaving unclear what his real intentions were. The situation became even more complicated when allies like Saudi Arabia and Turkey signed new defense agreements, reducing their reliance on U.S. protection. The U.S. Fifth Fleet's base in Bahrain was damaged, and if it had to be relocated, the Persian Gulf would fall under Iranian control, putting allies like Bahrain and the UAE at risk. Current negotiations between the U.S. and Iran are described by The New York Times as an attempt to "cover up a failure."
4. The Strait of Hormuz: Control Over this Passage Determines Middle East's Oil Supply
The Strait of Hormuz is a vital global oil route, with most of the oil from Gulf countries (such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE) transported through it. Iran sees this as a symbol of victory: controlling the strait would allow it to pressure Gulf countries into compliance or even extract tribute; U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf (like the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain) rely on sea transport for supplies, and if the strait were controlled by Iran, these bases would be at risk. For the U.S., losing control of the strait would mean losing dominance in the Middle East; for Iran, it is a crucial step in proving its ability to win the war.
5. Internal Changes in Iran: The Hard-Line Faction Takes Power
The war has led to the hard-line faction of the Revolutionary Guard taking full control. For instance, Mujtaba Khamenei (son of the former leader) became the "chairman of the board," with actual decision-making made by the Revolutionary Guard generals. They have implemented measures that the former Khamenei had intended but failed to accomplish, such as consolidating the military command system and strengthening the power of the Revolutionary Guard, while suppressing internal opposition (e.g., using Baski militias to maintain stability). This indicates that Iran will become more assertive in the future and is unlikely to back down easily to the United States.
In essence, this news article suggests that the Middle East's geopolitical landscape is being reshaped, with Iran's hard-line forces challenging U.S. hegemony. The Strait of Hormuz is at the heart of this conflict, as it determines control over the region's oil supply and the balance of power in the Middle East.