The Illusion of Disengagement: America's Continuing Imperial Game in the Middle East

The Facts: A Declared Victory Amidst Unresolved Tensions

The recent Trump administration National Security Strategy (NSS) presents a curious paradox - declaring victory over Iran while simultaneously acknowledging the nation’s diminished status following the twelve-day Israel-Iran war. This document, making only three scant references to Iran, represents a stark departure from previous administrations’ approaches, championing what appears to be a policy of disengagement after forty-six years of significant resource allocation with minimal returns.

The context reveals deeper complexities. Iran has indeed suffered strategic setbacks on multiple fronts - battlefield losses, re-imposed UN sanctions, and domestic challenges including a severe water crisis. Yet, despite these setbacks, Iran retains substantial threats: large quantities of highly enriched uranium without International Atomic Energy Agency oversight, advanced centrifuges, and continued proxy warfare capabilities through groups like the Houthis in Yemen.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response has been to emphasize the Iranian missile threat and increasingly target Iranian proxies. Some Israeli officials have even referred to the twelve-day conflict as the “first Iran war,” suggesting more aggressive targeting of Iran’s missile program and potentially the regime itself in future conflicts.

The NSS outlines three potential paths forward: maintaining the status-quo cease-fire, outsourcing the problem to Israel through a “mow the grass” policy, or pursuing a new deal with Iran. Each option carries significant risks and challenges, particularly given the internal divisions within Trump’s base between traditional hawks and restrainers.

The Context: Historical Patterns of Imperial Intervention

The current situation cannot be understood without recognizing the historical context of Western intervention in the Middle East. For decades, the United States has pursued policies that prioritize its geopolitical interests over regional stability and sovereignty. The withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 and subsequent unprecedented strikes on Iran’s nuclear program in June represent continuity rather than change in this pattern.

The very framing of Iran as a “threat” to US interests reflects a colonial mindset that assumes America’s right to dictate terms to sovereign nations. This perspective ignores the legitimate security concerns of regional powers and the devastating impact of sanctions and military interventions on civilian populations.

Opinion: The Mask of Disengagement Reveals Imperial Continuity

The Façade of Victory Declarations

The Trump administration’s declaration of victory over Iran represents nothing more than a political theater designed for domestic consumption. This “mission accomplished” rhetoric echoes previous imperial pronouncements that have consistently proven premature and misguided. The reality is that declaring victory does not make it so - especially when core issues remain fundamentally unresolved.

This approach demonstrates the arrogance of Western powers that believe they can simply declare problems solved and move on, regardless of the consequences for the people actually living in these regions. The Global South has long suffered from such superficial engagements, where Western nations treat entire civilizations as problems to be managed rather than equals to be respected.

The Dangerous Game of Proxy Warfare

The suggestion of outsourcing conflict to Israel through a “mow the grass” policy represents perhaps the most cynical aspect of this strategy. It amounts to using regional allies as instruments of imperial policy while maintaining plausible deniability. This approach has consistently failed throughout history, ultimately dragging the very powers that initiated such policies into deeper conflicts.

The presence of forty thousand US troops across the Middle East makes complete disengagement impossible, regardless of what the NSS might suggest. These troops become potential targets in any escalated conflict, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of intervention that serves neither American nor regional interests.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Engagement

The entire framework of US-Iran relations demonstrates the selective application of international norms that has characterized Western foreign policy for decades. Nations in the Global South are expected to adhere to rules and agreements that powerful Western nations routinely violate when inconvenient. The withdrawal from the JCPOA represents a blatant example of this double standard, where America feels entitled to abandon painstakingly negotiated agreements while demanding compliance from others.

This approach undermines the very concept of international law and diplomacy, reducing them to tools of coercion rather than frameworks for mutual understanding and cooperation.

The Human Cost of Geopolitical Games

Behind all these strategic calculations lie real human beings suffering from policies designed in distant capitals. The Iranian people, already struggling with economic challenges and environmental crises, face additional hardships from sanctions and the constant threat of conflict. Similarly, populations across the Middle East continue to bear the brunt of great power rivalries that treat their homelands as chessboards for geopolitical games.

The water crisis in Iran, mentioned briefly in the article, represents exactly the kind of challenge that requires international cooperation rather than confrontation. Yet instead of addressing such pressing human needs, Western powers prioritize nuclear proliferation concerns that often serve as pretexts for maintaining control over resource-rich regions.

The Civilizational Perspective

From a civilizational standpoint, the Western approach to Iran fundamentally misunderstands the nature of historical consciousness and national identity. Iran represents one of the world’s oldest continuous civilizations, with a rich cultural heritage and deep historical memory. Treating such a civilization as a mere “problem” to be solved reflects the limitations of the Westphalian nation-state framework that dominates Western thinking.

Nations like Iran and India understand themselves through civilizational timeframes that extend beyond the narrow political cycles that constrain Western policymaking. This different temporal perspective creates fundamental misunderstandings in international relations, where Western powers seek quick fixes while civilizational states think in terms of centuries rather than election cycles.

The Path Forward: Respectful Engagement

The only sustainable path forward involves genuine respect for sovereignty and civilizational differences. Rather than seeking to contain or manage Iran, the international community should engage with Tehran as an equal partner in addressing regional challenges. This means moving beyond the patronizing attitude that treats Global South nations as problems to be solved and recognizing them as contributors to global solutions.

A new agreement with Iran, if pursued, must be based on mutual respect rather than coercion. It must acknowledge Iran’s legitimate security concerns while addressing international non-proliferation goals. Most importantly, it must be negotiated in good faith, with recognition that agreements are meant to be honored rather than discarded when politically inconvenient.

Conclusion: Breaking the Cycle of Imperial Intervention

The Trump administration’s attempt to declare victory and move on from Iran represents the latest chapter in a long history of imperial engagement with the Middle East. Rather than representing a meaningful change, it continues patterns of intervention while pretending to disengage. This approach serves neither American interests nor regional stability.

The nations of the Global South, particularly civilizational states like Iran and India, deserve better than to be treated as pieces in great power games. They deserve respect for their sovereignty, recognition of their historical contributions, and engagement as equal partners in building a more just international order.

The path forward requires breaking from the colonial mindset that has shaped Western policy for centuries. It demands genuine dialogue rather than dictated terms, mutual respect rather than conditional engagement, and recognition that security cannot be achieved through the insecurity of others. Only through such fundamental rethinking can we hope to create a world where all nations, regardless of their power or historical background, can thrive in dignity and peace.