In today’s complex geopolitical landscape, the relationship between the United States, Israel, and Iran remains a topic of significant concern. This article delves into the historical context and the evolving military strategies involved, exploring how they shape the current tensions and prospects for peace.
Yves here. I invite readers with expertise in U.S. military strategy to share their thoughts on this matter. It seems perplexing that many analysts have claimed the U.S. and Israel were geared towards conducting high-intensity, short-duration air campaigns, while Iran prepared for a prolonged war of attrition. My limited knowledge of U.S. operations in Syria and Afghanistan might not provide the full picture, but perhaps those conflicts illustrate the dynamics described below.
Douglas Macgregor frames the U.S. failure differently, arguing that the country has not kept pace with an ISR-driven (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) approach to warfare, which he predicted in his 2003 book, Transformation Under Fire: Revolutionizing How America Fights.
By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, authors of War In Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict, now in its updated 2nd edition. Medea Benjamin is the co-founder of CODEPINK for Peace and has authored several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, researcher for CODEPINK, and author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.
U.S.-allied South African troops engage in a search and destroy mission in Namibia during the 1980s. Photo: Wikipedia
The recent 60-day extension of the ceasefire between the United States and Iran offers a glimmer of hope for lasting peace, yet it could just as easily falter in a week due to the dysfunctional alliance between the U.S. and Israel. Should the ceasefire endure, it may signify a shift away from the “low-intensity conflict” approach that has historically dictated U.S. foreign policy.
Discussions involving the U.S., Iran, Pakistan, and Qatar began in Switzerland on June 21st. However, Iran insists that the U.S. must be held accountable for Israel’s breaches of the U.S.-Iran memorandum. Consequently, no further progress can be made until the U.S. honors its obligations under Article 1, which mandates an actual ceasefire and Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon.
If the agreement between Iran and the U.S. collapses, the world could face significantly reduced oil and gas supplies and potential warfare involving Iran, Israel, and the U.S. from Lebanon to the Persian Gulf.
This ongoing crisis is a stark reminder of the global community’s failure to address Israel’s military violations and its enduring occupation of Palestine. The U.S. continues to facilitate these actions through its military and diplomatic alliance, as well as through the provision of arms to the Israeli military.
Trump appears to be acutely aware of the deteriorating positions of the U.S. and Israel, recognizing that his own political future hinges on withdrawing from the conflict with Iran that he and Netanyahu instigated. Advocates for peace worldwide support the temporary ceasefire extension and criticize the attempts by politicians in Washington and Tel Aviv to undermine it.
To grasp the origins of this crisis in U.S. foreign policy, we must look back. Since the 1980s, an aggressive U.S. foreign policy has plunged the Middle East and much of the globe into what military strategists term “low-intensity conflict” or “LIC.”
This doctrine allows the U.S. and its ally Israel to take military action that blatantly violates international law, while deterring global political will to hold them accountable.
The Reagan administration in the 1980s made a conscious decision to adopt low-intensity conflict following the U.S. defeat in Vietnam. After the disastrous full-scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq by Bush II and Cheney, the subsequent administrations of Obama, Trump, and Biden reverted to low-intensity warfare, albeit with an expanded global reach.
This shift in U.S. strategy was inspired by British imperial tactics in the 1950s. Through events like the Suez Crisis, the guerilla conflict in Malaya, and the Mau Mau torture camps in Kenya, the brutality of British policies remained obscured behind a narrative of lies.
In 1989, Michael Klare and Peter Kornbluh edited a book titled Low-Intensity Warfare: How the USA Fights Wars Without Declaring Them.
They observed that the official definition of low-intensity warfare was intentionally vague, encompassing a wide range of actions such as drug interdiction in Bolivia, the occupation of Beirut, the invasion of Grenada, and airstrikes in Libya in 1986, as well as covert operations, “special actions,” and “unconventional warfare.”
Their conclusion highlighted that low-intensity conflict represented a strategic adjustment within the U.S. military establishment, reflecting a renewed commitment to using force in a global campaign against revolutionary movements and governments in the Global South.
The nominal ceasefires currently seen in Gaza, Lebanon, and the Persian Gulf exemplify this doctrine. They enable the U.S. and Israel to maintain illegal military actions while ostensibly responding to international calls for dialogue and diplomacy.
However, the U.S.’s engagement in low-intensity conflict is not confined to the Middle East. It extends to the proxy war against Russia centered in Ukraine, the devastating blockade of Cuba, acts of piracy on high seas, the abduction of Venezuelan President Maduro and his wife, and coercive economic measures or “sanctions” affecting approximately 40 countries.
Today’s low-intensity warfare also encompasses the deployment of U.S. special operations forces in as many as 140 countries. Since 2001, U.S. special operations forces have claimed responsibility for around 40% of all U.S. military casualties, which includes many of the 8,492 American fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This concentration of casualties among a relatively small force of about 70,000 personnel at any given time generates an illusion of tranquility for many American families, even as the U.S. exerts military power globally, resulting in the deaths of thousands, often numbering hundreds of thousands, overseas.
The doctrine of low-intensity warfare is predicated on a fundamental belief: that nations targeted by the U.S. and its allies will remain too weak, isolated, or fragmented to mount effective resistance. However, this assumption is increasingly being challenged.
Iran has made significant advancements in its military defenses, clearly demonstrating its capability for self-defense to astonished U.S. and Israeli leaders. Meanwhile, the tragic outcomes of misleading ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon serve as stark reminders that Israel and the U.S. still prefer low-intensity warfare over genuine peace.
Even as Trump positions himself as a peacemaker, he is committed to maintaining a vast military apparatus capable of adjusting the intensity of military and covert operations worldwide in response to evolving forms of resistance and shifting international diplomatic landscapes.
However, the U.S.-Israeli conduct in Gaza has awakened a new wave of global awareness regarding U.S. imperialism. The fabric of official deception that supports low-intensity warfare is fraying. Populations worldwide are becoming less willing to accept the fallacious narratives propagated by U.S. and Western political figures and the mainstream media.
Political, military, and business leaders in the U.S. face a growing crisis of credibility as they increase the intensity of their military campaigns, whether through heightened aggression in Russia, the severe blockade of Cuba, actions that result in innocents being killed in the Caribbean and Pacific, or by threatening traditional allies such as Canada and Denmark.
In the current U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran and the associated peace negotiations, we observe the struggles of an assaulted nation striving to confront aggressors, balancing power dynamics, and asserting international law.
Regardless of opinions about the Iranian government, Iran’s quest for a lasting peace founded on sovereignty, security, and adherence to international law is deserving of support from governments and citizens worldwide, including those in the U.S.
This juncture may represent a pivotal opportunity to curb U.S. military interventions and Israeli territorial expansion, potentially allowing humanity to break free from the relentless cycle of warfare and collaborate in addressing the pressing challenges facing the world in the 21st century.
As the citizens of the United States reflect on the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding, they must confront the violent legacy of the U.S. empire, which continues to manifest in their own neighborhoods and streets. It is essential to align with those around the globe who have resisted U.S. imperial violence for generations.
Ultimately, the responsibility lies with us to seize control of our future and initiate the crucial transition from empire to democracy.
That is why CODEPINK is advocating for a Summer of Peace and Love—a call to reject fear, militarism, and imperial ambitions while uniting our communities around the radical but straightforward demand that our nation cease waging war globally and redirect those energies toward fostering life and well-being.
