THE Middle East has long been a battleground in which imperial powers have played out their power games by creating, enhancing and exploiting regional tensions. However, the most recent plans of the US to “reshape” the region go back some 18 years to the speech made by then US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, in July 2006 when she stated that the US was seeking major change in the Middle East.

Under successive US presidents since then, the concept of a Greater Middle East has evolved. President Obama developed the US’s New Middle East Plan to reassert influence and bolster resource control in the region. Obama’s version of the plan resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran in 2015 and a more nuanced approach to containing the perceived threat of Iran to the regional power balance.

Donald Trump took a more belligerent approach, tearing up the JCPOA in 2018, taking a clear position of supporting the objectives of Israel to be the region’s dominant military power and protector of US interests.

Rice’s proclamation was no doubt borne out of the Bush administration’s declared War on Terror, which already had disastrous consequences in Iraq, would engulf Afghanistan, result in the destruction of Libya and at each stage has emboldened Israel to deny the Palestinian people their own state, to which they have a right in accordance with international law, and to deepen the oppression of the occupation.

Throughout this period, the US has played cat and mouse with the theocratic dictatorship in Iran, combining sabre rattling, public declarations and threats with behind-the-scenes diplomacy to mitigate the impact of sanctions.

So far, the US has calculated that a direct war with Iran would be a strategic error which would destabilise the region to an extent that may threaten wider US interests.

However, the changed balance of forces following events since October 7 2023 and the recent overthrow of the regime in Syria may well shift that calculation. The return of an evangelistic pro-Israel Donald Trump to the White House may be the spark that lights the fire. The appointment of Marco Rubio as secretary of state reinforces this possibility. Rubio has in the past called for a “muscular” foreign policy, especially in relation to China, Iran and Cuba.

There is little likelihood of US troops being directly engaged in any conflict with Iran. Israel, on the other hand, as the regional superpower proxy, may well feel that to assert its dominance, a significantly weakened Iran would be to its advantage. The US would have to give the green light for such action, but with Trump as president, there is every prospect of Netanyahu and his fundamentalist Cabinet being let off the leash.

The recent escalation of Israeli bombing in Syria is a case in point, pounding the country with more missiles in two days in December than had been used in the entire previous year.

The HTS Islamists, currently posing as nationalist saviours in Syria, are still proscribed by the US as a terrorist organisation, and yet have received covert support, and already, the US has made public commitments to recognising the government that emerges from their military action. If the removal of the secular Assad regime in Syria goes the way of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, the region will face more uncertainty and chaos.

For Israel, the removal of Assad in Syria, the weakening of Hezbollah in Lebanon and the pounding of both Hamas and the civilian population in Gaza is seen as a breaking down of the so-called Axis of Resistance, proclaimed by Iran, and makes Tehran the next logical target.

The adventurist foreign policy carried out by the Iranian dictatorship has helped fuel the perception that a direct conflict with Israel is inevitable at some point. Internally, the Iranian regime is struggling with its own inevitable contradictions as a young and increasingly vocal population demands greater rights, freedoms and social justice, free from the dead hand of the medieval theocracy, which seeks to dominate all aspects of their lives.

Political and trade union activists remain imprisoned, tortured and executed for daring to question the regime. Activists of the “women, life, freedom” movement, which has gained a significant profile since the murder in custody of Mahsa Amini in September 2022, increasingly face arrest, persecution and torture for their views.

Such instability could be the harbinger of change initiated by the Iranian people themselves, but it could also be the pretext for foreign intervention and the imposition of a regime more friendly to the interests of the US and Israel than it is to the needs of the Iranian people.

Opposition to any declaration of war with Iran must go hand in hand with supporting the struggle of the Iranian people against the theocratic dictatorship while at the same time opposing the plans of the US and Israel to reshape Iran and the Middle East in their image.

The future of Iran must be in the hands of the people of Iran. Being drawn into a wider Middle East conflict will not result in peace, democracy and social justice but may just exchange one form of dictatorship for another.

Gawain Little is general secretary of the Committee for the Defence of the Iranian People’s Rights —  Codir.net.