The US plan seeks to eliminate Iran's Supreme Leader to control the Middle East, while Israel aims to dismantle the Gulf for Greater Israel

Professor Jeffrey Sachs has indicated that there is a long-standing CIA initiative currently in progress aimed at enhancing U.S. control over the Middle East. 

Dr Pamelia Riviere

The influence of the Deep State and Israel in the recent attack on Iran raises significant concerns for the stability of the Middle East. This situation not only has the potential to reshape regional dynamics but also poses a threat to global peace as a whole. 

In recent months, the world has witnessed the intricate dynamics through which the CIA and Mossad have attempted to influence events in Iran, aiming to instigate a revolution that would ultimately topple the theocratic regime in power. The assassination of a prominent religious leader in a Muslim-majority country and the bombing of elementary schools and hospitals without provocation from Iran raise significant ethical and political concerns. 

Despite their efforts, which included a combination of covert operations and support for dissident groups, these initiatives have not yielded the desired results. The resilience of the Iranian government, bolstered by its extensive intelligence apparatus and popular support among certain segments of the population, has thwarted these external attempts at intervention. The situation remains complex, with both domestic and international implications continuing to unfold.

Dahiya Doctrine Implementation Plan in Iran

Narges Bajoghli, an associate professor of anthropology and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, provided insights during an interview with Democracy Now on March 4, 2026, regarding Israel's potential military strategies towards Iran. She highlighted concerns that Israel may be preparing to apply the Dahiya Doctrine, a military strategy originally developed for use in Lebanon, to the situation in Tehran. Bajoghli noted that recent reports indicate Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has expressed intentions to implement this doctrine, which involves extensive bombing campaigns targeting both residential and critical infrastructure in densely populated urban areas. The Dahiya Doctrine is designed to undermine local support for ruling governments by creating significant destruction and chaos within civilian communities. 

In an interview with Fox News, Trump said that 48 Iranian leaders have been killed in strikes carried out by the United States and Israel. Netanyahu has asserted plans not only to enact the Dahiya Doctrine but also to eliminate any successor to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. This rhetoric signals a potentially aggressive stance from Israel towards Iran and raises concerns about the implications for civilian populations in Tehran. Israeli politician Israel Katz stated on X that leaders appointed by the Iranian government to pursue a strategy aimed at undermining Israel and posing threats to the United States, free nations, and regional countries, as well as to suppress the Iranian populace, will be considered targets for elimination. This statement reflects Israel's stance on the perceived threats from Iran's leadership.

CIA’s Failed Regime Change Strategy?

Professor Jeffrey Sachs has indicated that there is a long-standing CIA initiative currently in progress aimed at enhancing U.S. control over the Middle East. This strategy is not the sole agenda of figures like Donald Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu; rather, it involves a broader coalition, including significant backing from Israel itself, which seeks to assert its dominance in the region. There is uncertainty about whether the Gulf monarchies, U.S. allies, fully grasp the implications of these moves and are taking adequate precautions to ensure their survival amid shifting power dynamics. This intricate geopolitical chess game appears designed to propel the U.S. into a state of conflict with Iran, largely to satisfy the interests of both the Deep State in Washington, D.C., and Israeli leadership. 

In the coming years, we may see the US attempt to exert greater influence over the Middle East. However, Professor Jeffrey Sachs from the US suggests that such a takeover is ultimately unsustainable in the long run, as he shared with a Global Times reporter. The dynamics in the region could lead to unexpected developments that challenge this strategy.

However, it is crucial to note that just because the Prime Minister of Israel has advocated for a regime-change war against Iran, it does not imply that such a course of action is inherently wise for Israel. Many analysts agree that engaging in conflict with Iran is far from beneficial for the United States as well, a sentiment that isn't universally accepted within the CIA. 

Additionally, the CIA has been actively involved in fostering revolutionary movements within the Kurdish communities throughout the region, aiming to exploit local dynamics for strategic gains. This involvement underscores the complexity and potential volatility of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, where multiple interests and actors interplay in a precarious balance.

An Unplanned War: Shortages of Essential Missiles

On March 2, 2026, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published an article detailing the United States' use of low-cost, one-way attack drones in its military operations against Iran, marking the first deployment of such technology in combat scenarios. In response, Iran has been utilizing its Shahed drones with similar strategic objectives. However, U.S. military analysts indicate that the United States lacks an adequate supply of interceptor missiles, making extensive combat operations logistically challenging and cost-inefficient. Simply put, the country does not have infinite resources at its disposal. Additionally, a report from Al Jazeera on March 3 noted that analysts anticipate a potential depletion of crucial interceptor missile supplies within weeks. Recent leaks from the Pentagon suggest that ongoing military strikes on Iran extending beyond ten days could lead to shortages of essential missiles. This raises the question of why the U.S. chose to engage in military action, especially considering the recent failures of the CIA and Mossad to achieve regime change in Iran, despite attempts to incite a revolution. 

The situation is reminiscent of the 12-day conflict, where Israel sought support to halt hostilities and broker a ceasefire amidst significant Iranian attacks. The complexities of these military engagements prompt an examination of strategic miscalculations and their implications for regional stability.

The military situation remains precarious, as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has announced plans to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) from the Persian Gulf. In response, the U.S. is contemplating repositioning THAAD and Patriot defence systems from South Korea to the Middle East due to critically low interceptor stocks.

‘America First’ or Israel First Americans are in a Quandary

President Trump may soon redefine ‘America First’ once again, potentially aligning it with his evolving strategic priorities. As advocates for military action against Iran prepare to make their case, it’s worth noting that he did not campaign on a platform of war with Iran. As he shifts his focus, we must consider: Is Iran truly a greater threat now than it was 18 months ago? The transition from an ‘America First’ stance to an ‘Israel First’ approach could prompt significant discussions and potential changes in foreign policy. What will this mean for future relations in the region? 

Confusing Statement by Marco Rubio Caused Division.

In a recent statement that has sparked significant debate, Senator Marco Rubio indicated that Israel has played a substantial role in leading the United States into its current conflict with Iran, describing the situation as "the worst possible thing." This comment highlights an increasing divide within the U.S. government as "Operation Epic Fury" escalates into what many are calling a global crisis. Reports suggest that Vice President JD Vance has been influential in urging President Trump toward a more aggressive military stance. 

 Rubio highlighted the concerning dynamics surrounding military resources, particularly emphasizing the efficiency of inexpensive drones compared to traditional interceptors. He pointed out that while the U.S. invests heavily in interceptors, adversaries can produce drones much faster, raising questions about the effectiveness of its current strategies. This recognition of imbalance could lead to intensified military actions in the coming days. Furthermore, the conversation shifted to the existential nature of the current conflict for Israel, which is making calculated decisions based on the belief that a premature ceasefire could allow the U.S. and Israel to regroup and re-launch military operations after a brief respite. 

Is a Premature Ceasefire Waiting or a Regional War

For a ceasefire to be lasting, they argue, it must come only after a costly engagement for all parties, ensuring that the lessons of the conflict are deeply ingrained. There is a palpable fear that a hasty ceasefire could embolden adversaries, as evidenced by past experiences in which a quick truce led to renewed conflict. The fallout from a previous ceasefire in June serves as a reminder of the dangers of rushing to peace without fully addressing the underlying costs and consequences of the war.

In a recent interview on the podcast Breaking Points, Dr. Trita Parsi from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft addressed statements by Marco Rubio and Mike Johnson regarding the U.S. decision to strike Iran. He emphasized that the U.S. action was primarily driven by the understanding that Israel would attack Iran regardless of American involvement, putting U.S. service members at risk. Parsi expressed that this perspective was clearly articulated, highlighting that the Israelis have effectively been in control of the situation, with the U.S. following their lead on matters of war. He argued that this decision undermines the notion of "America first," revealing a prioritization of Israeli interests over American ones instead.

The ongoing conflict is also having a severe human toll, with President Trump vowing to respond to recent attacks on U.S. personnel and the American Embassy in Riyadh. Public sentiment continues to shift, as recent surveys show that 80% of Americans believe the war may be a distraction from other pressing issues, including the Epstein files. This rising skepticism could heighten domestic resistance to the military efforts. 

On the international front, countries such as France are reportedly increasing their nuclear arsenals, and North Korea has expressed its willingness to provide advanced missile support to Iran, suggesting the potential for further escalation. The White House is now grappling with dual challenges: managing an expanding multi-front war in the Middle East and navigating a fracturing political landscape domestically. 

What Role Can GCC Play in this War

David Ben-Gurion had grand aspirations for a Greater Israel, envisioning a nation that could play a pivotal role on the world stage. However, his ambitious nuclear plans faced staunch opposition from President John F. Kennedy, who was wary of such developments. So, what role can the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) play in countering the United States' influence in the Middle East and challenging Israel's utopian vision of an expanded state? 

A report from the Times of Israel highlights significant backlash from Arab nations following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's comments about his connection to the vision of Greater Israel. Countries including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, the Arab League, and the Palestinian Authority have publicly condemned these remarks, criticizing them as reflective of a "mentality steeped in colonial delusions." In a related development, allegations of espionage have surfaced, with Tucker Carlson reporting that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have detained agents from Mossad, Israel's national intelligence agency, who are accused of plotting bomb attacks. This situation has led to heightened tensions among Gulf monarchies and increased skepticism regarding Israel's intentions in the Middle East.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) represents an informal alliance that has recently evolved into a slightly more formal one. This organization consists of six Gulf monarchies: Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Collectively, these nations are recognized as significant energy producers on the global stage. All members of the GCC are Sunni Arab states with considerable wealth. Recently, they have emerged as influential players in international diplomacy, effectively filling the gap left by Switzerland. The latter has, due to its stance in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, diminished its role as a neutral ground for negotiations. 

This shift has led to a perception that Switzerland is under the influence of the European Union and NATO, compromising its traditional position of neutrality. In contrast, several Gulf states, particularly Qatar, maintain a stance of relative non-alignment, making them more conducive to diplomacy. As a result, numerous global conflicts are increasingly being addressed in Qatar and, more recently, Oman. This positioning has endowed these nations with a sense of moral authority on the world stage, and they are recognized for their effective diplomatic efforts. Their ability to foster positive relationships has greatly enhanced their international standing. There is an expectation that Qatar and Oman can now serve as a forum for negotiations on the US-Israel and Iran conflicts and enhance their moral authority on the world stage. Their effective diplomacy can garner goodwill and foster peace in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Turkey can also play a significant role, positioning them as key players in international relations. 

In a recent interview with Al Jazeera, Abdulaziz Alghashian, a senior non-resident fellow at the Gulf International Forum, discussed the evolving relationship between the Gulf States and the United States. He expressed concerns about the implications of U.S. actions in the region, particularly highlighting a shared grievance among Gulf leaders about their limited influence in U.S. decision-making, especially during the Trump administration. Alghashian emphasized that the Gulf States have been wary of conflicts that could arise from U.S. policies, particularly those involving military actions, which they believe could jeopardize their security. He projected a shift towards more proactive diplomacy, particularly in Washington, aimed at mitigating any negative impacts stemming from U.S. actions. Alghashian suggested that a collective approach among Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states could enhance their political leverage and diplomatic efforts, reducing fragmentation in their dealings with the U.S. and ultimately fostering a more unified strategy for regional security and cooperation.

The Writer is a freelance analyst.