UNITED STATES-IRAN WAR 2026 IN ITS THIRD WEEK: A STRATEGIC AUDIT

The United States War launched on Iran was a "War of Choice" and not as a "War of Necessity" was discussed in my last post. The War has entered its third week with no concrete indicators of d of any possibilities of deescalation by United States or "Surrender" by Iran as demanded by US President Trump.

The respective strategies of United States and Iran were laid out also in the last post. The War its third week contrary to United States strategic calculations and estimates would have ended in a week going by the massive air strikes and bombardment of Iran by United States and Israeli predominant air power.

United States Strategic Balance Sheet

In the third week ongoing, the United States along with Israel air power have inflicted massive damage on Iran's military infrastructure, missile launching pads and nuclear installations.

The above has not contributed to United States 'end-aim' of 'unconditional surrender' as articulated by the US President Trump.

In the third week of this War, reports now indicate that the United States has ordered move of US Mrine Expeditionary Forces to The Gulf. This signals that the United States is now being forced to commit 'Boots on the Ground' to subdue Iran.

In tangent, the United States has not been able to reopen the Hormuz Straits, whose freedom of navigation is critical for global energy requirements and economies. In fact, the United States has shied away from breaking the Iranian Naval Blockade pleading that NATO and other Nations must join in a coalition.

Iran's Strategic Balance Sheet

Iran's strategy was based on 'national survival' and in tandem expanding the Area of Conflict and its scope. 

In the third week, Iran shows no signs of internal political collapse despite the top spiritual and military hierarchy being decimated by Israeli pinpointed precision strikes.

Iran has launched retaliatory strikes on Arab Gulf Monarchies hosting American Bases in the Gulf. This has generated a piquant situation for United States in that US Security Shield to the oil-rich Gulf Monarchies is perceptionally "leaky" d may nudge the Gulf Monarchies to 'reset' their relations with United States.

In the third week, Iran has succeeded in matching American and Israeli invasion of Iran by inflicting equally devastating damage to Gulf Economies, US Economy, and Global Economies by closure of Hormuz Straits.

Iran launching two IRBMs at US BAase in Diego Garcia 4000 km away speaks volumes of Iran to escalate the War and also its IRBM capabilities.

The Role of United States, Israeli and Iranian Intelligence

A 'Strategic Audit' would be incomplete without comments of the intelligence apparatus and capabilities of the three main actors in this War.

Going by the precise hits on Iranian dignitaries by pinpointed strikes, Israelis intelligence outshines the rest. Years of painstaking surveillance both by electronic means and human intelligence made this possible.

American intelligence though rich in electronic apparatus had the advantage of use of Pakistan territory for launching clandestine US CIA operations deep within Ian.

Iran had to rely solely on Rusia for military intelligence of US military deployments. However, Iran has the advantage 'sleeper cells' in the predominant Shia population of the Gulf States. 

Predictive and Estimative Intelligence f the United States: Underestimated Iran's Resolve to Counterretaliation

United States falls short when it comes to accurate Predictive and Estimative Intelligence on Iran's strategic culture and resolve for counterretaliation.

Presumably this emerges from overconfidence and cultural insensitivity.

Rift in United States Intelligence Hierarchy

Two events need to be noted here.

The resignation of National Counterterrorism Director, Kent who resigned on grounds of disagreement on the Invasion of Iran and also the escalation.

He was a favorite of President Trump.

National Intelligence Chief Tulsi Gabbard in testimony before the Congress panel stated that the decision to launch the Invasion was that of therein President Trump . The Agency only provided intelligence and was not involved in the decision-making

Final Observations

Escalation by both sides inherently carries the possibility of President Trump's resort to disproportionate force to force Iran to surrender, to cut short the timelines of War.

While resorting to the above, President Trump should not forget the lessons of the Vietnam War wherein President Johnson ordered the Tet Offensive faced with similar situation.

The resolve of Viet Cong Forces when forced into a corner was prolonged the War and subsequent ignonimous American withdrawal from Saigon, Vietnam.

 

 

U

US PRESIDENT TRUMP IVASION OF IRAN: "WAR OF NECESSITY" OR "WAR OF CHOICE"-PERSPECTIVES

 The United States is now in the second week of its invasion of Iran in concert with Israel, in a war which President Trump asserted was his personal decision.

President Trump's invasion f Iran has led to violent counter-retaliatory strikes by Iran against US Bases, US facilities all over the Middle East and on Israel.

Iran has widened the scope of its counterretaliation this time by attacking military targets and petrocomplexes of US Allies in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain.

The intensity and expanded area of war have been covered in 24/7 TV coverage and with that as backdrop, one can now move to offer perspectives on the critical issue of what impelled United States to invade Iran? 

Geopolitical and Middle East security environment analysis in recent past, preceding US invasion of Iran, analytically suggests that this US invasion was impelled not as a "War of Necessity" but as a "War of Choice" of President Trump.

Iran invasion by United States ordered by President Trump to be classified as a "War of Necessity" should have rested on strong indicators, geopolitical and miliary, of an imminent threat to security of United Sates and Israel, especially nuclear.

Global strategic analysis suggests that there was no such imminent nuclear weapons threat. Last year, Iran's nuclear sites were subjected to US & Israeli nuclear strikes after which it was claimed that the strikes were successful in putting back Iran's nuclear weapons acquisitions by two years.

The global nuclear watchdog agency IAEA has declared in the last few days that there is no evidence of Iran being close to a nuclear weapon test.

 Iran's nuclear threat has been overplayed by the United States in a copybook replay of the Gulf War of Iraq on similar lines.

Hence, the Iran invasion by the United States does not qualify as a "War of Necessity". It seems more of a "War of Choice"

The invasion of Iran in initial stages seemed to have been premised on 'Regime Change' and liquidation of Iran's existential nuclear threat and that with decapacitation of the spiritual and military leadership would generate mass upsurge in Iran leading to an instant collapse of the Iranian State.

United States and Isreal were successful in assassinating Ayatollah Khamenei and his advisory council in well planned massive bombing complex of his residential complex in Teheran.

This in its wake has led to (1) Iran unleashing its full fury of missiles, rockets and drones swarm attacks on US Bases and its neighbors allied to United States (2) Iran has blocked the Hormuz Strait (3) No regime change upsurge has taken place in Iran,

Perceptionally, the United States during the last seven days has been forced to change the goalposts of its end-aims. It seems that the United States had 'Under-estimated' Iran's counterretaliation, its intensity, and Iran widening the area and scope of conflict.

United States "War of Choice" in invading Iran seems headed to a protracted War in the Middle East. Even if United States were to prevail over Iran, global economic stability has seriously been disrupted, and the Middle East sands portend to be bloodier.  

After seven days of 24/7 airstrikes by United States and Israel, the major conclusions on the success of United States and Israel, can be surmised as follows (1) United States has not succeeded in generating a 'Regime Change' in Iran (2) Iran's nuclear complexes and infrastructures have not been obliterated (3) Iran's counterreatliatory strikes capabilities have not been significantly degraded.

Iran in the last seven days has demonstrated that (1) Iran's counterretaliation capabilities continue to be strong (2) Iran has succeeded in widening the area and scope of war by continuing missiles and drone attacks on US Allies of the Gulf (3) Iran domestically has not thrown up any visible evidence of mass public upsurge for Regime Change of existing political and spiritual order.

In terms of future perspectives, it can be safely asserted that the US-Iran War will not end in Unconditional Surrender by Iran as publicly demanded by President Trump.

The US-Iran War now seems to be settling down in the mould of two opposing strategies of the main protagonists, involving a race against time.

The United States is racing against time hoping that its 24/7 massive airstrikes and bombing of Iran would force Iran into an 'Unconditional Surrender'.

Iran seems to have adopted the strategy of 'Wearing Down' the United States by withstanding its bombings, and in tandem inflicting missiles/ drone attacks on US Allies in The Gulf, forcing them to build pressures on United States to seek an 'Honorable Exit' to preempt collapse of monarchial Gulf States and the collapse of their 'Petrodollars Economies'.

Concluding, the major conclusion that emerges, is that the United States 'War of Choice' in invading Iran, seems to be headed towards a 'Messy Endgame' like all previous such US Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The United States should have learnt lessons from Russian Invasion of Ukraine wherein Russia with such massive bombings could not make Ukraine "Surrender" to Russian dictates in the last four years.

Iran is not going to be an easy walkover for United States like Venezuela. Iran could end up as a "Ukraine" for United States.

 

 

UNITED STATES TRUMP 2.0 REVERTS TO 'CHINA-HEDGING' AND 'RISK-AVERSION' POLICY TO OFFSET GROWING GEOPOLITICAL ISOLATION

In marked contrast to US President Trump 2.0 imperious postures in 2025 across the global geopolitical landscape, what singularly stands out is Trump 2.0 virtual appeasement of China by totally reversing Trump 1.0 (2016-20) 'Hard Line' strategy.

United States under President Trump 2.0 seemingly fearful of China's retaliatory economic and massive military power, seems in 2025-26 to have reverted to older versions of US-Strategy of "China-Hedging' and 'Risk Aversion'.

President Trump 2.0 gave early notice of his inclination of change of China-policy during his bid for second-term election campaign.

Retrospectively, analyzing after corelating it with Trump 2.0 postures, one could surmise that Trump 1.0 China-postures were the 'China-bullying' phase. That China with its 'brinkmanship propensities' stood its ground in the Trade Wars drove home to Trump that China was not ready to take bullying strategies by Trump.

China was well prepared and ready with contingency plans to deal with a belligerent Trump 2.o unlike other Major Powers who had not tasted Trump 1.0 Trade Wars.

Geopolitically, in January 2025, when President Trump began his second term, the challenges facing the United States emerged more diverse and complex. 

In Europe, Russia's invasion of Ukraine was ongoing in its third year, more intense and devastating.

 China without putting 'boots on the ground' was heavily subsidizing Russia's Ukraine Offensives militarily and economically.

The Middle East abounded with military conflicts. The chief of which and most inflammable being Iran which the United States could not suppress. Israel was besieged by Iranian military proxy armed militias from Houthis disrupting the Red Sea to Hamas and Hezbollah besieging Israel.

Russia and China were strong supporters of Iran with both having separate Mutual Security Agreements with Iran. Iran's military inventories are of Russian and Chinese origin, besides sizeable indigenous defence production infrastructure.              

In effect, a Russia-Iran-China Axis was being perceived in Middle East operating against the United States and Israel.

China had outclassed the American unquestioned predominance in the Pacific by attaining full-spectrum dominance over the South China Sea and placing the United States on uninterrupted strategic tenterhooks with prospects of Taiwan Invasion----a nightmare for United States credibility as a credible nett provider n of security in the Pacific.

 The United States in 2026 is faced by a Russia-China-North Korea Axis in the Western Pacific, singly and jointly, are in military confrontation with the United States and all three are Nuclear Weapons Powers with Missiles Arsenals capable of hitting the United States.

China figuring intensely against United States security interests and influence from Europe to Middle East to Pacific, seems to have weighed heavily in forcing President Trump 2.o to apply 'Reverse Gears' to Trump 1.o ' Hard Line' Strategy against China. 

 President Trump in the run-up to his second term as President seems to have awoken to the fact that the United States could not defeat China with its massive economic and military resources.

The United States lack of economic or military compellance power over China thus prompted President Trump to induce and enlist China along with the United States in a "G-2" Global Security Management setup.

This G2 Concept earlier proposed by President Obama around 20025-08 did not take off. Revived by President Trump in late 2025, this time too it will fail.

United States in 2026 is in virtual adversarial confrontation with its Allies and Strategic Partners due to President Trump's unpredictable geopolitics and Tariffs Terrorism.

United States growing estrangement in 2026 with virtually the whole world has positioned China to raise its brinkmanship hackles against the United States.

China had declared plans to reunify Taiwan with China Mainland by 2027. This is where China would escalate brinkmanship to peak levels, even war itself.

President Trump is unlikely to defend Taiwan militarily, should China resort to war.

 President Trump aware of United States war-waging limitations in 2026, and minus unqualified geopolitical and military support from its erstwhile Allies, will take the easy "exit route" of adopting 'China Hedging' and 'Risk Aversion' policy to avoid a direct US-China War.

CHINA'S 2026 IMPERATIVES TO CUTOFF STRATEGIC LIFE-SUPPORT TO PAKISTAN ARMY CEASING TO BE A CHINA-ASSET

China ever since the Sino-Indian War 1962 has consistently provided incessant strategic life-support to Pakistan Army which effectively controls and dictates Pakistan's foreign and defence policies. The Chinese aim was to build-up a Chinese 'Proxy' for 'Containment of India' in South Asia.

Pakistan Army despite its emphasis on "Iron Brother" ties with China has spasmodically gravitated towards United States strategic orbit. It pivoted back to China when the transactional ties with United States stood frayed.

 The two major US Military Interventions in Afghanistan and US exit from Afghanistan are glaring examples.

This time around from May 2025 with advent of President Trump 22.0 regime in Washington coinciding with Pakistan's 'Strategic Humiliation' by India in OP SINDOOR in May 2025, and consequent Pakistan's disillusionment with Chinese military inventories made Pakistan Army Chief, now Chief of Defence Forces to strategically repivot towards United States.

Unlike past pivots of Pakistan Army Chiefs towards United States, the events in US-Pakistan from May2025 onwards indicate that while still attempting to keep balanced relations with China, Pakistan Defence Forces Field Marshal Munir now with unprecedented powers over Pakistan's political and security directions has decided to firmly place Pakistan in the American strategic orbit.

Noticeably, General Munir was elevated to rank of Field Marshal soon after Pakistan's crushing military humiliation by India. General Munir is to be held squarely responsible for this defeat.

Analytically, what emerges is that the United States pressurized Pakistan for elevation of General Munir to Field Marshal with unparallel political powers to position at apex level of Pakistan decision-making, a pliable Pakistan Defence Chief to serve American national interests in the region.

The fact that Munir has made three visits to Washington since May 2025 including a Lunch at White House specifically for him vividly illustrates how President Trump has strategically ensnared Pakistan Defence Chief.

Pakistan's strategic moves since May 2025 of inducing Defence Chief Munir needs no repetition. Increased geopolitical and military cooperation and aid by Trump 2.0 has spiraled. retrieving American hold

Brief analysis of President Trump 2.0 reversing gears in South Asian policies can be attributed to Trump Administration likely use of Pakistan as a springboard for inevitable US military invasion of Iran and retrieving hold over Afghanistan's Major Airbases like Bagram and "Neutralizing China's Stranglehold" over Pakistan.

To military minds it should be evident that the very strategic investments that China made in Pakistan to outflank its 'Malacca Dilemma' in terms of Karakoram Highway and Gwadur Port and its Airbase can in reveres be used by United States (courtesy Pakistan Defence Forces) to launch US military interventions against China's hold on Tibet and Xiangjiang--- rich is strategic minerals.

China must seriously deliberate over these unfolding American security challenges unfolding and amplified by Defence Chief Munir offering President Trump leases for prospecting strategic minerals in Baluchistan with added incentive of United States to develop Pasini seaport alongside Gwadur.

Wit such moves as outlined above, China should visualize the emerging picture that Pakistan Defence Chief intends supplanting China with United States in Baluchistan where China has made billions of dollars investments in CPEC Corridor linking China with Gwadur Port. China has already pulled up Pakistan recently for tardy implementation of these projects.

China should now see Pakistan Defence Chief diluting its Chinese military origin inventories with American and Turkish military hardware.

Pakistan Defence Chief's continued imprisonment of Former Pakistan PM Imran Khan and his brutalization, flouting Judiciary relief for him, needs to be viewed By China as inimical to China's interests. Public memory has to be reminded that PM Imran Khan was strongly pro-China and his 'Regime Change' was facilitated by the 'Deep State' setup both in Pakistan and United States.

Geopolitically, it would be wise for China to cut its losses in strategic over-investments in Pakistan. The very rationale of China's strategic life-support to Pakistan Army of proxy 'India Containment' stands knocked out after May 2025 OP SINDOOR, cumulatively heaped after 1965, 1971 and 1999 Pakistan miliary defeats by India. 

Finally, the major strategic deduction for China is that Pakistan is no longer "China's Strategic Asset" but now evolving as United States' "Cats Paw' to make China's Southern Belly as strategically vulnerable.

INDIA'S 'MODI DOCTRINE' OF MULTIALIGNMENT FOREIGN POLICY WILL BE NEW FLAVOUR OF GLOBAL GEOPOLITICS 2025

 India's Modi Doctrine foreign policy with its defining characteristic of "Multi-alignment" is emerging as the new flavor of global multipolar geopolitics in 2025 as Nations grapple with the geopolitical turbulence generated by U President Trump 2.0 unpredictable and impulsive policies.

Modi Doctrine has actively evolved since 2014 when PM Narendra Modi -led BJP Government came into power. The goalposts were laid to deal for India to navigate the onset of multipolarity in global geopolitics.

Modi Doctrine of Multi-Alignment should not be confused with Former PM Nehru's Non- Alignment. Doctrine. Non-Alignment was a passive policy responding to global geopolitics. It failed to secure geopolitical weight for India nor economic benefits.

Modi Doctrine represents 'redoubled efforts to cultivate diverse network of partnerships. This strategy has enabled India to balance relations with Russia, Cina and the United States while diversifying partnerships to navigate an increasingly volatile world order'.

Elsewhere Modi Doctrine of Multi-alignment is defined as 'A pragmatic issue-based foreign policy strategy moving beyond Cold War Non-Alignment, to build diverse, parallel partnerships with multiple   global powers and blocs to maximize national interests, economic opportunities, and security, without formal exclusive alliances, allowing flexible responses'.

Multi-Alignment of Modi Doctrine is a proactive foreign policy strategy which in 2025 has added considerable geopolitical weightage to India and assisted India in securing the third largest global economy position. India in 2025 thus now cannot be ignored in global power calculus.

The Modi Doctrine does not focus on India as a swing state but on India emerging as a Major Power in the global power calculus.

The proof of this assertion is that today all the global Major Powers comprising United States, Russia and China are moulding transformative foreign policy approaches to India's new strategy. European Powers now view Indian policies independently of United States perspectives.

China too is adopting more conciliatory postures from outright hostility convinced after Dokalam 2018 and moreso Galwan Clash 2021 that India was no longer a 'strategic pushover' of Non-Alignment era.

As far as the Global South is concerned, India is increasingly looked upon as the preferred and natural leader.

In 2025, with Europe and NATO being sidelined by United States under President Trump in his second presidency along with Western Pacific long-standing Allies like Japan and South Korea, it is logical that all these Major Nations would see merit in the Modi Doctrine of "Multi-alignment."

Noticeably, it is apparent to all these Major Allies of the United States, is that like India it is possible and beneficial to maintain "balanced relationships" with the Major Powers without being typecasted into opposing blocs. Bandwidth then becomes available to keep National Interests foremost without subsuming them to the perspectives of the predominant partner.

Concluding, it would not be an over-statement to assert that India's foreign policy thrust of "Multi-alignment enshrined in the Modi Doctrine e will increasingly find favor and flavor as the preferred geopolitical choice in a multipolar world beset with unpredictability at every corner.