From Nuclear Hysteria to Regime Change, How the Empire Recycles Old Playbooks to Block a New Eurasian Order
As tensions between Iran and Israel once again dominate headlines, mainstream narratives point to Iran’s nuclear ambitions as the central threat. But is that really the story? Or are we witnessing yet another iteration of a broader geopolitical strategy — one that uses fear, misinformation, and manufactured crises to justify imperial control?
This piece draws inspiration from the work of Alex Krainer, one of today’s most insightful and well-informed geopolitical analysts.
Target Tehran: Empire, Energy Corridors, and the Next Manufactured War
The escalating tension between Iran and Israel is widely portrayed in Western media as a confrontation over Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions. Yet this narrative—much like those used to justify interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria—warrants far deeper scrutiny. Beneath the surface lies a broader imperial contest over strategic control, trade routes, and regional dominance.
At the heart of today’s tensions is a familiar cast of geopolitical interests: the same Western-aligned forces currently opposing Russia in Ukraine. From this perspective, Iran is not merely an “isolated rogue state,” but a pivotal actor in a rising multipolar order that threatens Western dominance across Eurasia.
One crucial factor is the North-South International Transport Corridor (INSTC)—an ambitious logistics network stretching from the Indian Ocean, through the Persian Gulf and Iran, across the Caspian region, and up to St. Petersburg. This corridor offers a faster, cheaper, and more secure alternative to the Suez Canal for transporting goods between South Asia and Northern Europe. Iran’s geography and infrastructure make it indispensable to this route—and thus a geopolitical prize.
Western powers understand this well. They also understand that Iran is a vital node in China’s Belt and Road Initiative and a strategic partner to Russia and even Pakistan. In short, Iran represents the connective tissue of a new multipolar world order—and that makes it unacceptable to the West.
The Nuclear Narrative: A Strategic Smokescreen
The West’s portrayal of Iran as a nuclear threat is a calculated distraction. For over four decades, Israeli leaders—most notably Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—have warned of an imminent Iranian bomb. Yet no such weapon has materialized. What has emerged instead is a recurring pattern: regime change operations justified by fabricated or exaggerated threats.
We’ve seen this playbook before. Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction led to the catastrophic war in Iraq. Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown under the guise of humanitarian intervention. Bashar al-Assad, Slobodan Milošević, and Viktor Yanukovych were all portrayed as dangerous tyrants—but always in regions central to Western strategic interests.
These interventions are not driven by humanitarian concern or non-proliferation—they’re driven by empire. The true objective is control over energy corridors, resource-rich territories, and emerging markets. Like its predecessors, Iran is being set up for regime change because it refuses to submit.
The Hypocrisy of Disarmament
The irony is glaring: Iran hasn’t initiated a war in nearly 300 years. It has proposed diplomatic solutions, including calls for a nuclear-free Middle East. Yet the West shows no interest in such proposals when its regional ally, Israel, possesses an undeclared nuclear arsenal and faces no international scrutiny.
Instead, pressure is applied to Iran: dismantle your missile defense systems, scale back your enrichment programs, accept vulnerability. It’s not about security—it’s about subjugation.
Trump, Strategy, and Subversion
President Donald Trump, for all his bombast, may have understood the risks of war with Iran. The U.S. has failed in multiple recent military campaigns—20 years in Afghanistan ended in retreat; Ansar Allah in Yemen continues to operate despite a decade-long assault. Iran is no Taliban. It is a modern, well-armed state with proven military capabilities and support from major powers like China and Russia—even Saudi Arabia, following recent rapprochement.
A war with Iran would be devastating. U.S. and British military bases across the region would be immediate targets. Naval forces would be at risk. A ground invasion is unthinkable—Iran is a nation of over 90 million people. The era of Western military dominance is waning.
If Trump resists escalation, is it due to principle, pragmatism, or pressure? Has he been coerced into playing along? Or is he biding his time, maneuvering toward a larger strategic pivot? His cautious approach may indicate internal conflict—or even a trap being laid for Israel and the Western establishment.
Russia’s Strategic Calculus
Russia’s role is pivotal. While maintaining diplomatic ties with Israel, Moscow is strategically aligned with Iran. There is no plausible scenario in which Russia would support a Western-led regime change in Tehran. Such a move would place NATO-aligned forces on its southern flank, threatening access to both the Caspian Sea and the INSTC.
This crisis is part of a longstanding imperial strategy. Over a century ago, British geostrategist Halford Mackinder proposed encircling and destabilizing Eurasia to prevent any single power—particularly Russia—from rising. That strategy lives on in today’s flashpoints: the Baltics, Balkans, Ukraine, Syria, and beyond. The pattern is unmistakable: divide, destabilize, dominate.
Iran is under siege not because it’s developing a nuclear weapon, but because it’s helping build a world that no longer revolves around Washington, London, or Tel Aviv.
The Hidden Architecture of Modern Conflict: Empire, Economics, and the Illusion of Security
Modern wars are no longer fought solely with bullets and bombs. They are waged through financial leverage, narrative control, and covert influence. Imperial strategy has evolved into a more sophisticated apparatus—extracting resources, imposing debt, and maintaining geopolitical dominance under the guise of national security and humanitarian concern.
When conflict erupts in a strategic location, the pattern is predictable. The U.S. and its allies flood the zone—not just with troops, but with financial aid, much of it delivered as loans from Western-dominated institutions. These loans, far from fostering recovery, entrap countries in cycles of dependency. To repay them, governments are pressured to grant Western corporations access to their resources under favorable terms.
This system—clearly articulated in the theories of Mackinder and echoed in RAND Corporation strategy papers—ensures that wealth extracted from conflict zones flows back to financial hubs in London, Paris, and New York. It’s aid in name, extraction in practice.
The Real Stakes in Iran
The fixation on uranium enrichment—3%, 60%, 90%—is a distraction. The core issue isn’t nuclear capability; it’s Western access to Iran’s resources and its position at the heart of Eurasian integration.
The West follows a familiar playbook: demonize, infiltrate, destabilize. We saw it in Iraq, Libya, Syria—and increasingly, we see signs in Pakistan. Military cooperation agreements, covert intelligence operations, and the insertion of pliable political actors all pave the way for regime change.
Russia and China understand this well. Their long-term vision is the creation of a new security architecture in the Middle East—one based on cooperation, not domination. For both, Iran is central to that vision. They won’t allow Tehran to fall without a fight.
The same extremist groups once deployed in Syria and Iraq could be redirected toward Russia’s borders in the Caucasus and Central Asia. This is not hypothetical—militants from Chechnya and Dagestan reemerged in Syria under new names and new sponsors, as did Uyghur fighters from China. The threat is real, and both Russia and China are certain to take steps to neutralize it.
Tehran’s Strategy: Survival Through Deterrence
Iran understands the game. Though recent attacks may have caught it off guard—partly due to distractions from insincere negotiations—it is unlikely to fall for the same diplomatic traps again. Its insistence on maintaining the right to nuclear research—for energy, medicine, and strategic deterrence—is both lawful and calculated.
There are credible theories that during Trump’s presidency, backchannel efforts toward détente were quietly underway. Some speculate he even considered sharing intelligence on Israel’s nuclear arsenal. His contempt for Netanyahu was well known, and his realpolitik instincts may have favored direct negotiation over endless confrontation.
Trump’s foreign policy was often erratic, undermined by the very national security establishment he was supposed to lead. Many of his military moves—such as the symbolic missile strike on Syria or the sudden overtures to North Korea—seemed more aimed at placating critics than achieving military objectives. Iran may have been no different.
A Changing Battlefield
Iran’s nuclear “threshold strategy”—stopping just short of weaponization—is not about aggression. It’s about survival. Until Israel faces disarmament pressure, Tehran will maintain a deterrent posture. In a world where nuclear capabilities bring protection and leverage, this strategy makes sense.
The wider region reflects the same dynamics. Syria remains fragmented. The U.S. backs various militias. The UK and Turkey support others. Israel strikes from the south. Hezbollah regroups. Everyone is waiting for the next spark.
Meanwhile, Trump’s recent contradictions—alienating allies, shifting policies—suggest either a dramatic repositioning or internal chaos. But even hawks in the Pentagon now recognize a grim reality: hypersonic weapons and drone warfare have made traditional military hardware like carrier groups obsolete. What once symbolized dominance now signals vulnerability.
The Empire’s New Toolkit
In today’s world, conquest wears a different mask. It’s waged not just with bombs, but with sanctions, media manipulation, psychological warfare, and weaponized law. Sovereignty is under siege—quietly, relentlessly, and globally.
The real war is for your mind. The future won’t be decided on the battlefield alone, but in the information space—controlled, curated, and censored by Western power centers. That’s why it’s critical to stay alert, question everything, and reject the narratives designed to pacify and mislead. The 21st century’s defining struggle isn’t just about who holds power—but who controls the truth.