Washington and Tel Aviv's Goals in the War on Iran: A Struggle for Influence and the Future of the Regional Order

International calls from opinion leaders and humanitarian organizations are escalating to stop the war waged by the United States and Israel on Iran and Lebanon, amidst widespread destruction threatening the stability of the entire region. As the war enters its sixth week, the true motives appear to go beyond the declared slogans, with Washington's desire to curb the growing Chinese influence, which relies primarily on Iranian oil supplies, becoming prominent.

Observers believe that US President Donald Trump recognizes the strategic importance of Tehran as the owner of the second-largest oil reserves in OPEC and the main supplier to major Asian powers such as Japan and South Korea. Therefore, targeting Iran essentially represents an American attempt to restore unipolarity and absolute control over global energy markets and their supply routes.

On the ground, Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz has paralyzed the movement of more than 20% of global oil exports, posing a real dilemma for the US administration. Despite Trump's calls for NATO countries to undertake the task of forcibly opening the strait, hesitation prevails in military circles for fear of sliding into an all-out confrontation with uncertain outcomes.

Through this war, the United States seeks to achieve five strategic objectives, foremost among them overthrowing the political regime in Tehran and dismantling its military capabilities. Washington also aims to undermine Iran's allies in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, to ensure the protection of Israeli and American interests in the vital West Asian region.

The nuclear file stands out as one of the primary drivers of the conflict, with Washington demanding a complete halt to the uranium enrichment program and control over Iran's estimated 450 kilograms of enriched uranium. The US administration also seeks to dismantle the long-range ballistic missile system, which has become a direct threat to American bases and their allies in the region.

In the context of economic restructuring, the American plan aims to integrate a 'demilitarized' Iran into the international economic system to control its rare mineral resources. This coincides with efforts to establish the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), connecting India to the Gulf states and Europe via Israel, to serve as a strategic alternative to routes controlled by Tehran.

For his part, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces increasing internal pressure, having attacked the Supreme Court for allowing anti-war demonstrations in Tel Aviv. Netanyahu considered these movements to weaken the home front at a sensitive time, comparing the freedom to demonstrate with the restrictions imposed on religious rituals during Passover.

Field sources reported that Israeli police used force to disperse protest gatherings, resulting in the arrest of 17 people and a demonstrator suffering a heart attack requiring urgent medical intervention. These protests reflect a decline in public confidence in the war's trajectory, after opinion polls showed a significant drop in support compared to the beginning of military operations.

Amidst the current military stalemate, reports indicate that Trump may face extremely dangerous options, including greenlighting the use of tactical weapons or weapons of mass destruction. These extreme options aim to force the Iranian leadership to submit to American conditions, despite warnings of their catastrophic ethical and political repercussions for the US administration.

Political readings suggest that Iran has so far managed to absorb the initial shock of the war, relying on cyber and military capabilities that surprised Western intelligence circles. Experts believe that Tehran may have set a 'strategic trap' for its enemies, exploiting their ignorance of the extent of defensive capabilities it has developed during years of siege.

On the regional level, mediation efforts led by countries such as Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt failed to bridge the gap between Washington and Tehran, as negotiations reached a dead end. The Iranian side insists on rejecting American conditions, affirming its readiness for a long-term confrontation that may witness new military surprises on the ground.

Analysts believe that the failure to achieve a quick resolution could lead to a resounding political defeat for Trump and his Republican party in the upcoming midterm elections in November. Netanyahu faces the same fate, as the continuation of the war without tangible results threatens the collapse of his ruling coalition and the fall of his government in the elections scheduled for October.

The current conflict represents a historical turning point that could lead to the birth of a new world order, ending the era of unipolarity led by the United States. If Iran withstands, it may emerge from this confrontation with a greater ability to impose its conditions, including imposing sovereign fees on navigation in the Strait of Hormuz to compensate for its losses.

In conclusion, the region faces open scenarios, where major economic interests intertwine with geopolitical ambitions, in a war described by observers as a 'bone-crushing battle' that will define the contours of influence in the Middle East for decades to come, amidst global anticipation of what the coming days will bring in terms of field and diplomatic developments.

The raging confrontation is not merely a struggle to protect interests, but a strategic attack aimed at building a new regional order under broader American hegemony.