Four Faultlines: Why US-Israel Strikes on Iran Were Years in Making

The United States of America has long wished to portray itself as the only superpower on Earth, a stature questioned to some extent when the terror strike happened in 2001. That incident showed China that the US is perhaps not almighty, and marked a period of China’s rise as a global power. Elsewhere, Russian President Vladimir Putin is on a mission to recover the lost glory of the Cold War days, and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, it seems, wants the same.

On February 28, the US and Israel launched joint strikes on Iran, one of the three major powers in the Middle East, killing its highest authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Subsequently, Iran retaliated, targeting US strongholds and allies in the region.

The events of the last few days must not be looked at in isolation. They are, in fact, a manifestation of years of US efforts to destabilise and overthrow the Islamic-Republic regime, nullifying the changes in West Asian politics that came about with the Revolution in Iran in 1979. In the aftermath of Khamenei’s death, let us look into the four major factors that have led to the recent escalation.

Iran Revolution

As unfathomable as it may seem now, Iran and the US shared good relations in the past. The US has always had an interest in the Middle East to meet its energy requirements, allowing its companies to extract oil and natural gas in the region to fuel its economy. The previous regime of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in exchange for US backing, used to supply these resources at a concession, which led to resentment among the masses in Iran. This resentment was not only towards Pahlavi, but the US as well.

It soon turned into a revolution, and ultimately, Pahlavi was overthrown in 1979, in what came to be known as the Iranian Revolution. During the revolution, the US embassy was also attacked. The country then declared itself an ‘Islamic Republic’. Iran established a parliament with elected representatives, a presidential system, and above all, a Supreme Leader, a religious entity with the most power in the country.

Ties soured with the US since. Khamenei’s predecessor, Ruhollah Khomeini, who took charge as the first Supreme Leader of Iran, established a theocratic regime. Iran saw a new orthodox system in place as women’s rights were curtailed at large. This led to mixed feelings about the new system among the masses, causing a divide within the country. The US’s hand in the region’s politics and claim over its resources were also reduced since the revolution, and it started plotting a regime change to get what it wanted all along.

Israel's Influence

Israel as a country was established in 1948 after the United Nations voted to partition British-mandated Palestine into two separate states, one Jewish and one Arab. The United States played a significant role in pushing for the UN resolution that enabled Israel’s creation, seeing in it both a moral imperative in the aftermath of World War II and a strategic ally in West Asia. Historically, the region had been inhabited by ancient Jewish tribes. Owing to its geographical position at the tri-junction of Asia, Europe and Africa, the land witnessed repeated invasions over centuries, leading to the dispersal of Jewish communities across the world. Living as minorities in different countries, Jewish populations established themselves as resilient, hardworking communities and often rose to prominent positions in public life, including in the United States, where, despite being a minority , they have held influential roles in administration and public affairs.

The interwar period between World War I and World War II marked one of the darkest chapters in Jewish history. Adolf Hitler’s ideology of Nazism, built on hyper-nationalism and anti-Semitism, sought to unify Germany after its demoralising defeat in World War I by directing hatred toward Jews. The systematic persecution, incarceration in concentration camps, and mass extermination of six million Jews during the Holocaust generated global sympathy and reinforced the belief among many Jews that a sovereign homeland on their ancestral land was essential for their survival and security. After World War II, the United Nations finalised the resolution for the creation of a Jewish state. However, the Arab population already residing in the region, now identified as Palestinians, were allocated separate territories, primarily the West Bank and Gaza. Backed by several Islamic nations in the region, Palestinians opposed the UN partition plan, leading to the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948, followed by three more major wars. Israel’s survival and military strength, many argue, would have been difficult without sustained US support.

In the decades that followed, tensions deepened. Israel, facing persistent security threats, adopted increasingly assertive policies, while Palestinians found themselves confined to increasingly narrow territories. Disputes over land, settlements, and sovereignty hardened positions on both sides. For Washington, Israel emerged as a crucial strategic partner, a reliable foothold in West Asia, offering political, military, and intelligence access to a volatile region. Meanwhile, in Gaza, Hamas rose as a militant organisation that also oversees the enclave’s political system, launching periodic attacks on Israel while demanding Palestinian liberation. Following the October 2023 attack by Hamas, Israel intensified its military operations in Gaza, leading to extensive destruction and significant civilian casualties, described by many as collateral damage in an asymmetrical conflict.

US President Donald Trump has proposed a 20-point Gaza peace plan, widely interpreted as an attempt to recalibrate the situation and prevent irreversible damage to Israel’s global reputation while offering a coordinated pullback strategy involving both Israel and the United States. Meanwhile, Iran’s “Axis of Resistance”, a network of militant groups including Hamas, adds another layer of complexity. Though Iran’s engagement with the Palestinian issue is often viewed through the prism of its rivalry with the United States rather than sectarian solidarity, its backing of anti-Israel groups positions it as a central adversary. As Hamas signals openness to negotiations, efforts by the US and Israel to neutralise Iran’s influence are seen as part of a broader strategy to eliminate long-term threats to Israel and reshape the regional balance of power.

Proximity To Russia

Beyond the Israel-Palestine conflict, the larger geopolitical chessboard is shaped by energy security and great-power rivalry. Natural gas, often described as the “cleaner fuel” of the transition era, lies at the heart of this contest. Russia and Iran together control close to 45 per cent of the world’s proven natural gas reserves, giving them enormous leverage over the future global energy architecture. For the United States, limiting the emergence of a Russia-Iran energy nexus is not just about West Asian stability but about preventing a consolidation of power that could influence global fuel supply, pricing, and political alignments for decades. Control over natural gas is increasingly viewed as control over the strategic fuel of the future.

For Moscow, the stakes are equally high. President Vladimir Putin has long sought to revive Russia’s stature reminiscent of its Cold War-era parity with the United States. Being seen as an equal, if not superior, to Washington remains central to the Kremlin’s geopolitical ambition. In this context, Iran’s current Supreme Leader-led regime serves Russian interests. It is firmly anti-US, challenges Western influence in the region, and acts as a strategic partner in energy and defence cooperation. Russia is unlikely to favour any political transition in Tehran that could tilt Iran toward the West or dilute this alignment. Supporting the existing Iranian power structure not only sustains an anti-US axis but also strengthens a potential long-term energy bloc capable of shaping the global natural gas market.

Meanwhile, the United States has consolidated ties with traditional regional partners such as Saudi Arabia and Israel. Despite Riyadh’s rhetorical support for the Palestinian cause, Saudi Arabia’s deep-seated rivalry with Iran has drawn it closer to Washington and, indirectly, to Israel. Through US-brokered regional diplomacy such as the Abraham Accords, several Arab states have normalised relations with Israel, although Saudi Arabia itself has stopped short of full formal recognition, largely due to the unresolved Palestinian issue and the internal political sensitivity of direct proximity to Israel.

In essence, the regional equation is no longer defined solely by territorial disputes but by overlapping ambitions; US efforts to prevent a Russia-Iran energy and military axis; Russia’s determination to reclaim Cold War-era global stature; Iran’s ideological resistance to American influence; and Saudi Arabia’s balancing act between Palestinian solidarity and strategic hostility toward Tehran. At the centre of this web lies natural gas, the fuel many see as the bridge to the future, and the geopolitical leverage that comes with controlling nearly half of its global reserves.

Nuclear Factor

Lastly, and most importantly, the nuclear dimension remains central to tensions between Iran and the United States. Ironically, Iran’s nuclear journey began with American support under the Dwight D Eisenhower administration’s “Atoms for Peace” programme, which provided civilian nuclear technology to allies, including Iran under Shah Reza Pahlavi. Iran later signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), accepting international safeguards. Under the NPT framework, countries that had already developed nuclear weapons before 1967, effectively the five permanent members of the UN Security Council—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—were recognised as nuclear-weapon states and expected to pursue gradual disarmament, though no binding timeline was imposed. All other signatories, including Iran, agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons and to allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Notably, India, Pakistan and Israel never signed the NPT and therefore are not bound by its inspection regime, while North Korea signed but later withdrew.

The 1979 Iranian Revolution fundamentally altered Tehran’s relationship with Washington. After the regime change that replaced the Shah with a theocratic leadership under a Supreme Leader, Western suspicion deepened. Allegations emerged that Iran was enriching uranium beyond civilian levels at facilities such as Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. Under NPT obligations, Iran must permit IAEA audits to ensure uranium enrichment remains within civilian-grade limits. Tehran maintains that its programme is for peaceful energy production and medical research, but it has periodically limited inspector access and declined to disclose certain data fully, fuelling international allegations. While Iran technically retained the sovereign option to withdraw from the NPT, doing so would almost certainly signal intent to pursue weapon-grade enrichment and could trigger swift US or allied action. Thus, Iran’s formal stance remains that it does not seek nuclear weapons, even as mistrust persists.

Tensions escalated sharply in the early 2010s. A 2011 IAEA report detailing concerns over possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear programme was followed by sweeping US-led economic sanctions in 2012 that severely damaged Iran’s economy. Diplomatic efforts eventually produced the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany). Under the agreement, Iran accepted strict limits on enrichment levels and unprecedented inspection access in exchange for sanctions relief. During the presidency of Barack Obama, Iran was widely reported to be adhering to the deal’s technical requirements. However, in 2018, President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the JCPOA, arguing that the agreement was flawed and that Iran’s disclosures could not be fully trusted. Sanctions were reimposed, intensifying economic and political pressure on Tehran.

From Washington’s perspective, preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is framed as essential to safeguarding Israel’s security and preserving broader US strategic dominance in West Asia. Nuclear capability in Iranian hands is viewed as a direct threat to Israel, which possesses its own nuclear arsenal, and as a challenge to US regional hegemony. For Iran, however, nuclear capability is seen as a deterrent more than a weapon for use. The example of Ukraine, once the world’s third-largest nuclear power but relinquishing its arsenal under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum before later facing Russian invasion, is a cautionary tale about security guarantees without nuclear deterrence.

Conclusion

Against this backdrop, allegations, sanctions, regime-change rhetoric, and efforts to dismantle Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” and weaken its proximity to Russia are seen as interconnected objectives aimed not only at halting nuclear development but at reshaping Iran’s political order and regional influence.

Also Read: Iran War: West Asian Disturbances Threaten India's Economy, Strategy and Diplomacy