The need for an alternative play book for peace
Het oorlogverhaal dat zich vandaag in Iran ontvouwt, komt griezelig bekend voor – een scenario dat rechtstreeks uit het klassieke geopolitieke draaiboek van de Verenigde Staten lijkt te zijn geplukt, schrijft Ashok Gladstone Xavier vanuit India. Telkens wanneer de VS in een conflict verwikkeld raakt, worden er vergelijkingen met het verleden getrokken, en de huidige situatie in Iran vormt daarop geen uitzondering. Het weerspiegelt wat er in Irak is gebeurd, en meer recentelijk in Venezuela.
Alle indicatoren wijzen erop dat dit een weloverwogen plan van aanpak is, een standaardprocedure die in verschillende regio’s wordt toegepast. Al lijkt president Trump dit momenteel wel erg wispelturig uit te voeren. Er zijn gemeenschappelijke factoren die een duidelijk beeld schetsen van wat er nu gebeurt en wat er ons nog te wachten staat. Laten we deze patronen eens van naderbij bekijken.
The pretext: Weapons of Mass destruction
The justification for the war in Iraq (2003) was rooted in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, which claimed thousands of American lives. Though all evidence indicated that Iraq had no involvement, the attacks were used to frame a broader narrative.
Then-president George W. Bush famously labeled Iraq, along with Iran and North Korea, as part of an ‘Axis of evil.’ While Iran was named a leading member, the immediate target for the regime change was Iraq.
The stated justification was that Saddam Hussain’s Ba’ath Party was unjustly oppressing and killing Christians, Kurds, and other minorities. The unspoken objective, however, was to eliminate a perceived threat to the United States.
To sell this war to the public and the world, the administration relied on the existence of imaginary weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). At a time that drone warfare was in its infancy and a full-scale invasion required ‘boots on the ground’, the US secured the support of the United Kingdom, led by Tony Blair (Labour).
Despite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) refusing to endorse the claim of active WMD programs, the coalition invaded Iraq. They sent thousands of troops, toppled Saddam Hussein, and installed a puppet government.
Two decades later, Iraq, despite its vast resources, remains fragile and unable to stand firmly on its own. Saddam Hussein was gone, but the promised WMDs were never found. What remained was the complete destruction of a country.
The Pattern: Resources and Control
If this story sounds familiar, one need only look at the recent efforts to destabilize Venezuela (January 2026). The push for regime change there was driven not by a genuine concern for the Venezuelan people, but by the country’s vast oil reserves.
This reveals a consistent ulterior motive: gaining control over strategic regions and their resources. It stems from an economic agenda where controlling the process of resource extraction and sale becomes more valuable than the product itself. Nations that hold the resources are reduced to mere custodians, while those who process and sell them reap exponential profits.
Whenever a leader opposes American business interests – specifically the interests of the American establishment – a regime change operation is set in motion.
This is typically attempted through a multi-stage process: first, by fomenting political turmoil and funding protests to create the illusion of mass dissatisfaction. If this ‘soft’ coup fails, direct intervention is deployed, as was the threat in Venezuela and the reality in Iraq.
The Gaza Lesson: Proxies and Disproportionate Response
The situation in Gaza offers another lesson from this same playbook. The horrific October 7th (2023) attacks, in which Hamas killed thousands of Israeli civilians and took hundreds hostage, played directly into the hands of a waiting Israeli government.
The resulting military response, while framed as self-defense, has been devastatingly disproportionate. It has pushed the Palestinian population in Gaza to the brink of starvation by cutting off humanitarian aid, and the bombing continues in the name of fighting terror. This war has the unwavering blessing of the United States.
What is often forgotten in this narrative is that Israel’s very existence was made possible by the generosity of the Palestinian people and the surrounding region, who provided refuge for the Jews after the Second World War. Today, the table have turned, and Palestinians struggle to survive in their own remaining territories.
This conflict teaches a dangerous lesson: that a state can commit acts that amount to ethnic cleansing and face little to no accountability from international bodies. Nearly every international treaty on war – from the UN Charter to the UDHR, the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions – has been disregarded.
In the midst of this, we have witnessed the emergence of an ‘alternative’ peace initiative, actively promoted by the United States, to bypass UN efforts. Even before the ink dried on that proposal, the next conflict – with Iran – had already begun.
The Iranian Escalation
This time, the difference is that Iran possesses more firepower and a demonstrated determination to confront the US and its allies. Iran has long been a strategic thorn in the side of the US, supporting groups like the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine, all of which have built a formidable ‘axis of resistance’ against Israel. In response, Israel has struck targets in Syria to project power beyond its borders.
The narrative built against Iran is that its government, particularly through its cultural police, suppresses freedom and oppresses its people. Protests within Iran were encouraged and amplified with the hope of fomenting a ‘soft’ regime change.
When that proved unsuccessful, the option of direct action appeared to be the final resort. This escalation occurred even as diplomatic talks were ongoing.
On February 27th Omani mediators expressed satisfaction with the progress of peace dialogues. The very next day, a senior Iranian nuclear scientist was killed, and the supreme leader was targeted, an act widely attributed to Israel. This set off a major offensive.
Iran responded with significant firepower, targeting American assets in the Gulf region. Shockwaves rippled from Bahrain to Dubai, Qatar, and the UAE. While countries like the UK issued condemnations, they stopped short of direct military involvement, though they permitted the US and Israel to use their regional military bases. Iran has retaliated by targeting these assets.
The Futility of War
As the world watches the Middle East teeter on the edge of a broader war, it is hard to ignore the grim reality these conflicts result only in the destruction of people, property, and futures. Whether it is the thousands of children killed in Gaza or the civilians caught in the crossfire in Iran, the cost is always measured in human lives. Infrastructure that took decades to build is destroyed in seconds. All of this is too often fueled by religious ideologies and unyielding narratives that block the path to rational peacebuilding.
In this current confrontation, it is difficult to discern a clear objective. If the goal is regime change in Tehran, it would almost certainly require ‘boots on the ground’ – a prospect for which the American public has little appetite.
Furthermore, the strategy of fostering peace through overwhelming power has never worked; it has only created a ‘negative peace’ that sows the seeds for the next conflict.
The war in Iran risks becoming another misadventure for the United States, much like Vietnam and Afghanistan. It will strain national resources, acting like firecrackers that light up the sky while burning money and, more importantly, burning lives.
The cost of war is not measured in dollars alone, but in the stolen potential of generations. As history has shown, in war, there are no true winners – only survivors left to deal with the consequences.
The lessons from the US playbook, as applied in Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan have never been stories of success. The time has come to discard this outdated manual and write a new one – a playbook for peace. This requires a departure from deeply entrenched, religiously fueled thinking and a move toward constructive dialogue and rationality. It means putting a hurting past behind us and moving forward as a global society capable of creation rather than destruction.
History will remember those who built and deployed weapons of mass destruction as tyrants, but it will honor the creators of peace as its saviors.
Ashok Gladstone Xavier
Ashok Gladston Xavier is associate professor in social work at Loyola College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
