'Boots On The Ground': Massive Attack and Tom Waits team up for powerful ICE protest song

Copyright Press - AP Photo

By David Mouriquand

Published on 16/04/2026 - EURONEWS

"Across the western hemisphere, state authoritarianism and the militarisation of police forces are fusing again with neo-fascist politics." Massive Attack have teamed up with Tom Waits for a haunting and incredibly powerful protest song, titled 'Boots On The Ground'.

British trip-hop icons Massive Attack and the legendary US singer-songwriter Tom Waits have teamed up to release a powerful, politically-charged new song, titled ‘Boots On The Ground’.

The haunting track is the first new material from both Massive Attack and Tom Waits in years. It takes aim at "recent ICE raids on migrant communities & the killing of civilians that protect them", with all proceeds from the song going to the American Civil Liberties Union and the US Immigrant Defense Project.

‘Boots On The Ground’ features additional vocals from Waits’ son Casey, and begins with the heavy breathing. Massive Attack then lay a tender yet menacing soundscape beneath Waits inimitable vocals.

“We trim your hedges, we fight your wars / Wait in the trenches and we're fucked till we're sore / With boots on the ground, boots on the ground...”

Other lyrics include: “Now who the hell are these federal pricks? / Hiding in the Senate like a bloated-ass tick / Air-conditioned fuckstick loafers / Sittin' in a room full of army posters” and “Cold and hot as Satan's hoof / Spinning on the world, I'm hiding on a roof / I kill a brown man I never ass knew / Choked on spit and then he turned blue.”

Boots On The Ground Press

The song comes with an equally haunting video which will send chills down your spine.

The film was created by Massive Attack, made with work by US photo artist thefinaleye.

“The film that follows encapsulates his work across an epoch forming six-year period,” reads the caption. “From the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis on 25th May 2020 to recent ICE raids on migrant communities & the killing of civilians that protect them. From the brutal state repression of public protest, to the reality of American homelessness that includes nearly 33,000 military veterans.”

The video ends by detailing those who have lost their lives to ICE and the impact of oppressive retaliation to protest.

“As of March 2026, eight people have been killed by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, or in ICE custody. Their names were: Renée Good, Alex Pretti, Geraldo Lunas Campos, Luis Gustavo Nunez Caceres, Luis Beltran Yanez Cruz, Parady La, Heber Sanchez Dominguez, and Victor Manuel Diaz.”

Check it out below:

Massive Attack’s Robert “3D” Del Naja and Grant “Daddy G” Marshal said in a press release: “It’s a career honour to collaborate with an artist of the magnitude, originality and integrity of Tom, but this track is arriving in an atmosphere of chaos. Across the western hemisphere, state authoritarianism and the militarisation of police forces are fusing again with neo-fascist politics.”

They added: “Seen within the American emergency, at home and overseas, this track contains pulses of callous impulse & abandoned mind.”

As for Waits, he revealed that he accepted the invitation to collaborate with the duo “many years ago”.

"Way back then, we sent them 'Boots On The Ground'," he said. "Their long release delay never worried me. Today, as in all of mankind's yesterdays, guarantees this song will never go out of style. Man's fiasco folly is a feast for the flies. Hence, the b-side of Massive Attack's upcoming 12 inch 'The Fly' features my appreciation for the winged nuisance."

‘Boots On The Ground’ will be released as an exclusive vinyl featuring the b-side Waits mentioned. Environmental considerations have shaped the physical release, with Massive Attack partnering with Good Neighbor on an 'EcoSonic' pressing manufactured from 100 per cent recycled PET via energy-efficient injection moulding. Recycled, FSC-certified paper stock and recycled polyethylene have been used for the sleeves and outer slipcases respectively.

Robert Del Naja before his arrest in London last weekend Screenshot X Defend Our Juries

Related

• Massive Attack join hundreds of musicians calling for Live Nation to drop operations in Israel
• Massive Attack’s Robert Del Naja arrested at Palestine Action protest in London

The release of ‘Boots On The Ground’ arrives after Massive Attack recently made headlines.

Robert Del Naja was recently among 500+ people arrested at a peaceful London protest in support of Palestine Action – a move by police he called “unlawful” in a statement.

Before his arrest, Del Naja told the Press Association he wanted to attend the protest despite the consequences a potential arrest could have on his career.

He said: “Being a musician, obviously, there was a lot of trepidation around how we might not be able to travel and get visas,” adding: “But I thought ‘this is ridiculous’ and then the police making that U-turn to arrest people again, I thought that is even more ridiculous. So I’m going to hold a sign today.”

“If I get arrested, I feel very confident that if I stand up in court with the right guidance and say, ‘This was an unlawful arrest and, therefore, I don’t accept it’.”

He concluded: “I think that the actions of Palestine Action were highly patriotic because they were pretty much protecting our country from getting involved in serious war crimes and breaking international law. How much more patriotic can you be than that?”

It remains to be seen whether the band’s upcoming EU tour dates will be affected by Del Naja’s arrest, which could impact the band’s travel.

Massive Attack also joined 400 other artists in backing the No Music For Genocide campaign, which geo-blocks their work in Israel. They have boycotted performing in Israel since 1999.

The band’s last release was the 2020 ‘Eutopia’ EP, which addressed global issues such as the climate and cost-of-living crises. Their most recent full-length record remains 2010's ‘Heligoland’.

Tom Waits AP Photo

Related

• ‘Rain Dogs’ turns 40: Celebrating Tom Waits’ greatest album - and his unparalleled discography
• Tom Waits on film: Euronews Culture's Top 5 picks for the musician's best big screen performances

As for Tom Waits, 'Boots On The Ground' is his first new material since his 2011 album ‘Bad As Me’

Since then, he has primarily focused on acting, recently starring in 2025’s Venice-winning Father Mother Sister Brother.

There have been persistent rumours that Waits could be writing again, with the hope that the 76-year-old artist may tour once more.

Waits will release ‘Where The Willow And The Dogwood Grow’ on 29 May. It is a curated collection of covers recorded by Bruce Springsteen, Marianne Faithfull, Norah Jones, Johnny Cash and Solomon Burke.

Lebanon, Iran, and the Forgotten Plight of the Shia “Infidel”

Nicky Reid

 April 17, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Image by Chloe Christine.

As a badly battered Middle East hangs off the edge of a cliff by a string with a temporary ceasefire between the United States and Iran, peace or anything remotely resembling it looks even less likely for Southern Lebanon than it does for the rest of that treacherous map drawn by dead British arseholes. Even if Israel were the kind of creature that could be trusted to respect a ceasefire with anyone, much of the damage is already done.

Long before the latest peacetime artillery pogrom, the IDF had already spent the better part of a month attempting to empty out every square inch of the region south of the Litani River with the same kind of scorched earth campaign they used to cleanse Gaza before obliterating every bridge crossing said Litani River. 600,000 people have been herded north to join another 600,000 Lebanese citizens in being internally displaced by Zionist terrorism.

Israel has made their intentions for this slice of the Levant sickeningly clear. They have already publicly abandoned their mythic crusade to disarm Hezbollah in favor of focusing exclusively on the blatantly illegal goal of simply annexing another chunk of the Holy Land and declaring it a “buffer zone.” They aren’t the least bit shy about just what they are attempting to “buffer” either.

Israel has released official statements reassuring the region’s Christian and Druze populations that they will be allowed to return home to Israeli-occupied rubble, but have also harshly warned these populations against so much as even sheltering any member of that region’s Shiite majority, who have very pointedly not been welcomed to return.

There is a word for this, and it starts with a ‘G,’ but even the most progressive First World observers don’t seem to want to use it. This seems particularly strange considering how many westerners have finally broken the taboo of accusing Israel of committing genocide in Palestine, but the word feels pretty damn appropriate here too.

Israel has openly declared war on Lebanon’s population of Shia Muslims, successfully removing many of them from the region of that nation that has long been their stronghold and instructing them in no uncertain terms never to come back, but still most westerners continue to avoid using the G-word here and I do believe that the reason why tells us a great deal about the violent current of First World depravity informing the larger regional war that has grown to engulf the entirety of the Middle East.

In a word, it all comes down to Shiaphobia.

Shia Muslims have long found themselves the victims of rampant and frequently brutal discrimination across the Muslim world, going all the way back to the death of the Prophet Muhammad. A minority among an already besieged faithful, Shiites provoked the wrath of the Umayyads with their critique of what they saw as the unjust power of the Caliphs and have never been forgiven for this rebellious trespass against theological conformity.

All other theocratic differences aside, it appears to be this population’s willingness to confront the corruption of the majority that has defined their plight above all else, a plight which has not only seen eleven of the twelve Shia Imams murdered at the hands of a variety of despotic autocrats, but has also led to the construction and proliferation of entire extremist Sunni sects like the Wahabi and the Salafi who are largely defined by their advocacy for genocide against all infidels, with the Shia serving the role of the original transgressors.

We have seen this play out in one horror show after another across the Muslim world, whether it be the systematic displacement of over 50% of Afghanistan and Pakistan’s Shia Hazara community or the glorified Sunni apartheid state of Bahrain, which has long shackled that oil-rich nation’s slim Shia majority with the status of second-class citizens.

More often than not, it has been Western imperialists fueling the bigotry, too, targeting Shia communities for their inability to capitulate and conform to our pseudo-Islamic Wahhabi quislings and generally using them as convenient scapegoats to keep the Sunni majority distracted while we rob them blind, too.

In many ways, for better or worse, Iran’s consistently defiant Islamic Republic is the natural result of the systemic plight of the Shia. After centuries of being raped and pillaged by one corrupt caliphate after another, the Twelvers formed a caliphate of their own, defined not only by their spiritual resistance to the West and its proxies but their willingness to put their money where their mouth is and support Shia and occasionally even Sunni resistance to colonial subjugation anywhere and everywhere it surfaces.

Sadly, this has also led Tehran to play the part of the foreign interloper, intervening even where they aren’t wanted by a Shia community far too vast and diverse to ever be properly represented by any kind of centralized authority. On more than one occasion, we have seen the Mullahs falling victim to that old Nietzschean trope and resembling the very same kind of corrupt caliphs they once defined themselves by disobeying.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has undoubtably become a corrupt and venal hierarchy of bloodthirsty fundamentalist imposters who have become totally disconnected from Islam’s roots as a force for social justice that had originally put them to the left of their Abrahamic cousins, but they must not be confused with the merciless beasts that even liberal westerners have convinced themselves that they are and they certainly must not be tarred by the downright absurd farce that they are somehow “the greatest state sponsors of terrorism on the planet.”

This simple act of historical sanity seems to be an obnoxiously challenging feat for the West to even attempt to grasp but after having our asses handed to us on a tarnished brass platter by the Islamic Republic, even after we assassinated the first two or three layers of their government, I feel like any form of peace is compulsory upon grasping it.

I guess, at the end of the day, you probably have to ask yourself a few hard questions before you can swallow the truth.

First, who is Hezbollah? Hezbollah is a militia formed by Lebanese Shia clerics during Israel’s brutal invasion of their already war-torn nation in the 1980s. They were trained by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard but formed well before this to defend a marginalized community subjected to near-routine massacres and pogroms during the Lebanese Civil War.

Now, who are the Houthis? The Houthi rebels, otherwise known as Ansar Allah, were actually a relatively moderate theological movement advocating for the revival of the Zaydi school of Shia Islam endemic to the mountains of Northern Yemen until their criticism of an American-backed dictator got their founder murdered and the Zaydi were forced to rely on the rifle to affect change. The Revolutionary Guard doesn’t actually appear at all during their rise until well after the Houthis established themselves as a force to be reckoned with.

But just who exactly are the Revolutionary Guard anyway, aside from a branch of the Iranian military connected to the so-called terrorists above? Well, they are the force responsible for organizing the Shia militias that crippled Al-Qaeda in the post-apocalyptic wasteland of post-Saddam Iraq. They are also the force that united a vast and diverse coalition known as the Axis of Resistance, more responsible than any conventional army for breaking the back of the genocidally Shiaphobic Islamic State.

Contrary to Western mythology, Iran’s Islamic Republic has found itself serving the role of the greatest state sponsor of grassroots antiterrorism on the planet. Now, with that being said, there is a very fine line between terrorism and antiterrorism, what with Nietzschean monsters being what they are, but let us at least get the score right and let us do so with a few more uncomfortable questions too.

First, who exactly is Al-Qaeda? Al-Qaeda is a loose network of Salafi-Wahhabist killers who spawned from the armies Jimmy Carter organized to kill communists in Afghanistan. And who are ISIS but the bastard sons of Al-Qaeda, not-so secretly funded by forces outside of the Levant for the purpose of destabilizing the pro-Russian Shia dictatorship of the Assad Dynasty in Syria. Their biggest donors are old Jimmy’s friends in the Persian Gulf

And just who are these friends in the Gulf? A clique of Salafi-Wahhabist billionaires defined by a series of Faustian bargains made with the British Empire and Big Oil after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. They are also the source of nearly every dollar that has ever lined the pockets not just of Al-Qaeda and ISIS, but Al-Shebab, Al-Nusra, Boko Haram, and nearly every other organization advocating for distinctly global, aka imperial jihad.

Now, for the million-dollar question. Who is the United States? The US is the empire that arms, funds, and defends those nefarious Gulf States, along with the blatantly genocidal state of Israel, with trillions of dollars in tax-pilfered funds and millions of pounds of military hardware, much of which mysteriously and repeatedly finds its way into the ungrateful hands of Salafi-Wahhabist killers across the globe.

Ladies and gentlemen, the United States of America is the greatest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet, and Iran is our number one target in the Middle East because they are the fucking monsters defined by destroying our fucking monsters.

The Russians have an old saying that the communists were wrong about everything but capitalism. I guess you could probably sum up this latest rant of mine by saying that the Mullahs were wrong about everything but the Great Satan.

They oughta know, Satan always seems to go after the Shiites and the communists first, and there ain’t many communists left.

Nicky Reid is an agoraphobic anarcho-genderqueer gonzo blogger from Central Pennsylvania and assistant editor for Attack the System. You can find her online at Exile in Happy Valley.

'Blasphemous': Franklin Graham ripped for defending Trump's Jesus image 'with Satan'

David Edwards
April 16, 2026 

RAW STORY

Franklin Graham attends UN global call to protect religious freedom meeting at UN Headquarters in 2019. (Shutterstock.com)

Samaritan's Purse President Franklin Graham faced backlash after defending President Donald Trump's decision to post an image of himself as Jesus.

"I do not believe President Trump would knowingly depict himself as Jesus Christ—that would certainly be inappropriate," Graham wrote on Thursday. "I'm thankful the President has made it very clear that this was not at all what he thought the AI-generated image was representing—he thought it was a doctor helping someone, and when he learned of the concerns, he immediately removed the post."

"There were no spiritual references—no halo, there were no crosses, no angels. It was a flag, soldiers, a nurse, fighter planes, eagles, the Statue of Liberty, and I think this is a lot to do about nothing," he added. "There is so much ill-intended speculation. I think his enemies are always foaming at the mouth at any possible opportunity to make him look bad."

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-FL) blasted Graham for making excuses instead of leading Trump to Christ.

"Franklin Graham making excuses for Trump posting himself as Jesus is one of the worst things I've seen," Greene wrote. "Trump posted his blasphemous picture with Satan added above him, the original picture had a soldier."

"Franklin Graham of all people, who is frequently at the WH and with Trump, should be leading Trump to be a Christian, NOT telling other Christians that Trump did nothing wrong when he committed blasphemy," she continued. "Trump knows what he is doing. He knows what he posted. He knows how to manipulate his followers. And he's not sorry, he never apologized. Instead he lied, and said he was a doctor, which is also absurd."

"Pay attention to ACTIONS, not words that tell you what you want to hear."

Trump takes his shot at peace

Nick Anderson. 

Raw Story
April 15, 2026 





Nick Anderson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist.

Ex-Fox News host unmasks 'scary' truth underpinning Trump's shock social media post

Robert Davis
April 15, 2026 

RAW STORY

Donald Trump takes a question at Trump National Doral Miami in Miami, Florida. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

A former Fox News host revealed a "scary" truth Wednesday underpinning President Donald Trump's latest shocking social media post during an interview on CNN.

On Sunday, Trump posted and then deleted an artificial intelligence-generated photo of himself appearing as Jesus Christ healing a sick man in bed. The photo also included pictures of military troops, the Statue of Liberty, and the American flag. The post sparked outrage among political analysts and observers, prompting Trump to eventually remove it.

Trump has since defended posting the picture, arguing that he didn't recognize the Christian iconography and that he thought it made him look like a doctor.

Gretchen Carlson, who left Fox News in 2016, told "Erin Burnett OutFront" that the post was a sign of a deeper issue.

"There's a deeper meaning here with him, because he's continuing down this storyline, because some of his supporters do think of him as a savior of sorts," Carlson said. "And so, now he's continuing to push that imagery out there."

"I think it's a little scary, quite honestly, that we're to a point now where just three weeks ago, his spiritual advisor called him Jesus, and there was no admonishment of that," she added. "Now he's continuing down this path. Where do we end up with this?"

Trump And The Unplanned Trap Of War With Iran – Analysis

April 7, 2026 
IFIMES

Genesis of the conflict and escalation of tensions

Tensions between Iran and Israel date back to 1979 and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, when the new theocratic authorities severed all diplomatic relations with Israel, branded it the “little Satan” and laid the ideological foundations for the export of the Islamic revolution. This doctrine was particularly geared towards supporting Shiite communities and movements across the Arab world – in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen – as Tehran sought to expand its geopolitical influence and undermine the stability of predominantly Sunni regimes in the region.[2]

In the decades that followed, hostility between the two states evolved through complex forms of indirect confrontation, including proxy wars, support for militant actors, the accelerated development of Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities, as well as a series of covert operations, cyberattacks and targeted assassinations by both sides. This long-standing rivalry culminated in the June war of 2025 – a brief but highly intense direct conflict – in which Israel launched extensive air strikes on key Iranian nuclear and military facilities, prompting Iran to respond with large-scale missile attacks and the mobilisation of its allied paramilitary networks throughout the region.

This conflict marked a turning point, as prolonged indirect hostility gave way to open military conflict, setting the stage for a deeper and more protracted regional crisis.
Failure of diplomatic efforts

From the outset, the American administration demonstrated a clear commitment to resolving the crisis through diplomatic means. To this end, the United States initiated indirect negotiations with Tehran, mediated by Oman. The first round of talks, held in Muscat on 12 April 2025, concluded without tangible progress, though the door remained open for further dialogue. A new attempt followed on 6 February 2026, again in Muscat, while the final round of negotiations was held on 17 February in Geneva, aiming to establish a framework agreement on freezing Iran’s nuclear programme and reducing regional tensions. However, the talks collapsed on the same day, primarily due to irreconcilable differences on key issues – specifically uranium enrichment thresholds, ballistic missile constraints, and Iran’s regional footprint – triggering a dramatic escalation of the conflict.

The United States soon found itself deeply embroiled in the conflict. President Donald Trump’s administration is now more than a month into a military campaign aimed at degrading Iran’s military capabilities over the long term. However, this operation carries growing risks of a broader regional war that could draw in further actors and severely disrupt global energy security. At first glance, this may appear to be yet another Middle Eastern conflict in which Washington acts to defend its allies. Yet closer analysis reveals a more complex reality: both Iran and Israel, driven by their respective strategic interests, have played a role in pulling the United States and President Trump into this war.


Despite the administration’s initial reluctance to enter another major conflict, and although Donald Trump entered his second term with the ambition of being seen as a “president of peace”, even as a prospective Nobel Peace Prize laureate, developments on the ground have outpaced political intentions. Within a single year, he helped broker the end of several regional conflicts, including the complex war in Gaza in 2025. Nevertheless, the escalating spiral between Tehran and Tel Aviv, compounded by the failure of negotiations in Geneva, significantly narrowed the space for diplomatic manoeuvring.

This dynamic is also captured in a well-known remark by Mao Zedong: “Victory, victory, victory… until defeat is reached.”[3] Its essence lies in the warning that even a succession of triumphs can culminate in strategic failure if not tempered by prudence and a long-term assessment of consequences. History abounds with such examples: Napoleon Bonaparte, following a string of spectacular military feats, met disaster in Russia and ultimate defeat at Waterloo in 1815; Adolf Hitler, after initial successes between 1939 and 1942, reached a critical turning point at Stalingrad, which marked the beginning of his downfall. The United States itself is not immune to this pattern: from Vietnam in 1975, through Iraq in 2010, to the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, a series of initial military successes ended in strategic overstretch and political retreat.



Against this backdrop, the breakdown of talks and mounting tensions between Iran and Israel effectively pulled the United States into a direct confrontation. Donald Trump was compelled to act to preserve the credibility of American power and protect national interests in the Persian Gulf – one of the key geostrategic zones of US global engagement.
A jointly laid trap: how Iran and Israel drew the United States into war

Although open hostilities erupted on 28 February 2026, their origins can be traced back to June 2025, when a pattern of reciprocal strikes had already taken shape. The escalation was temporarily halted on 24 June, when Donald Trump intervened and ordered a suspension of further attacks – Israeli aircraft, already operating over Iranian territory, were recalled to base. Following this brief lull, tensions intensified again through a series of indirect confrontations and strategic posturing. Efforts to de-escalate through indirect talks in Geneva in early 2026 ultimately failed, paving the way for renewed escalation at the end of February.

By late February, after negotiations collapsed in a deadlock, Israel concluded that diplomacy had run its course and launched a new wave of strikes against Iranian targets, causing the situation to deteriorate rapidly. Iran responded by directly striking US bases in Iraq and Syria, and Washington, faced with threats to its own forces and pressure from its Gulf allies, opted for direct intervention. A coordinated campaign with Israel was launched in March, targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, missile launch sites, naval assets in the Strait of Hormuz and command structures of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.


This spiralling dynamic serves as a textbook example of the “action–reaction” pattern, in which both regional powers leverage American might to further their own objectives. Iran seeks to demonstrate its ability to inflict unsustainable damage on US interests, while Israel pursues the lasting destruction of Iran’s nuclear programme, viewing it as a matter of its own survival. Amidst this rivalry, the United States is steadily losing the ability to remain a neutral observer. The endgame remains precarious for Washington: a withdrawal would risk a significant loss of credibility, potentially ceding geopolitical ground to Russia and China in the Persian Gulf; alternatively, escalating to salvage its reputation would entail profound political and strategic risks.

Despite the destruction of hundreds of Iranian targets and the elimination of high-ranking commanders, risks to US troops have increased, oil prices have surged, and global trade through the Strait of Hormuz has come under serious threat. Tehran has rejected ceasefire proposals, insisting on reparations and threatening to blockade the Strait. While neither regional actor explicitly forced America’s hand, both have created conditions in which the administration can no longer afford to remain on the sidelines.
War on the nuclear brink: what are the consequences?

Israel’s longstanding objective has been the dismantling of the Iranian regime – initially through internal revolution, and then through military capitulation. As both strategies have fallen short of their goals, the conflict has entered an existential “survive or perish” phase, in which the nuclear threshold represents a tangible threat.

Should Israel continue strikes on critical facilities such as Bushehr or Fordow, the consequences would extend far beyond the region. Even a relatively contained incident, such as a radiation leak, could endanger the entire Gulf area. Further attacks on nuclear infrastructure could remove Tehran’s self-imposed restraint on developing nuclear weapons, potentially turning Iran into another North Korea – a state with nuclear deterrence. At that point, Israel’s strategy would return to square one or, more dangerously, precipitate a catastrophe.[4]

President Donald Trump is attempting a different approach. His 15-point plan, conveyed on 25 March via Pakistan, calls for Iran’s complete abandonment of nuclear weapons and an immediate end to the war. Grounded in the “peace through strength” doctrine, the plan acknowledges the reality that the Iranian nuclear programme cannot be permanently eliminated – only delayed. Rather than pursuing further escalation, the proposal outlines a framework for negotiations with strictly defined conditions and clear pathways for de-escalation.

Panic in the Gulf states is understandable in light of disruptions to oil exports, which account for roughly 95% of their economies, as well as tangible damage to tourism and air transport, which in some countries contribute more than 10% of GDP. The energy insecurity brought by the war is placing additional strain on state budgets. A critical strategic vulnerability lies in desalination infrastructure across the Gulf, which provides roughly 80% of potable water in the region. It must be clear to Israel that a protracted war will neither dismantle the Iranian state nor extinguish its nuclear ambitions.


The current conflict evokes the imagery of the Roman Colosseum, where gladiators determined their opponents’ fate through death – except that in the case of Israel and Iran, the complete defeat of the adversary is unattainable. A potential transition into a nuclear phase would transform the regional conflict into a grave global threat.

What is required now is wisdom: a swift end to military operations, credible negotiations and a focus on long-term security without a nuclear Iran. Rather than pursuing a dangerous escalation, a pragmatic settlement could avert catastrophe and open the path to stability.
Regional dynamics, allies and strategic costs

The role of the United States’ regional allies in this conflict is multifaceted and strategically complex. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states find themselves in a unique position: they share concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme, yet directly bear the repercussions of escalation. Their geographical proximity to Iran leaves them exposed to missile strikes and the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a key maritime route for global oil trade.

These states are pressing Washington to sustain the military campaign and bring about the definitive collapse of the Iranian regime. They have also signalled readiness to shoulder part of the financial burden of military operations in pursuit of Tehran’s lasting defeat. These dynamics place additional pressure on the US administration, while simultaneously offering President Donald Trump room to calibrate his approach between safeguarding American interests and limiting the risk of a wider regional war.

As a pivotal US ally, Israel has specific security interests at the very heart of the conflict. Tel Aviv regards Iran’s nuclear programme as an existential threat and maintains that it cannot be neutralised through diplomacy alone. This perception has driven pre-emptive military action, prompting Iranian retaliation, including threats to US forces, and creating a chain of events that has drawn the United States into direct confrontation.

The military campaign against Iran entails substantial economic costs. Oil prices have surged as a direct result of volatility in the Persian Gulf, generating inflationary pressures on both the US and global economies. The financial burden of military operations, including the use of precision-guided munitions and logistical support, amounts to billions of dollars per month.

Nevertheless, diplomacy remains a key instrument for achieving a long-term solution. Experience from the Geneva talks suggests that, while differences between the parties are considerable, they are not insurmountable. The key components of any renewed negotiation process include credible security guarantees, the gradual lifting of sanctions in exchange for verifiable constraints on Iran’s nuclear programme, and the establishment of robust monitoring mechanisms. The Trump administration could draw on its diplomatic capital and previous peace efforts to secure a historic agreement with Iran – one that would not only address the nuclear issue but also pave the way for broader regional dialogue.

The probability of a US ground offensive against Iran

At present, a large-scale US ground invasion remains unlikely. While Washington is reinforcing its military presence and carrying out sustained air strikes on Iranian infrastructure and military targets, the lack of sufficient forces and the scale of associated risks represent major constraints. For comparison, during the 1990–1991 Gulf War, the United States deployed approximately 540,000 troops within a coalition numbering close to one million, whereas the 2003 invasion of Iraq involved around 150,000 to 170,000 personnel. In Iraq, Shia and Kurdish communities, accounting for around 80% of the population, initially received US forces in a relatively positive manner. In contrast, in Iran the population currently stands firmly behind the authorities, which limits the potential effectiveness of ground operations.[5]

A more plausible scenario would involve limited operations, such as short-duration airborne assaults on strategic locations – including Kharg Island or the Iranian coastline along the Strait of Hormuz. Stretching approximately 167 kilometres and narrowing to just 33 kilometres at its narrowest point, the strait represents a highly sensitive chokepoint through which a substantial share of global oil trade flows. Limited ground operations would likely focus on securing maritime corridors rather than engaging in a prolonged territorial occupation.

In this context, the United Arab Emirates could play a significant role, with their geographical position enabling logistical and operational support for US forces. At the same time, Iran is pursuing a strategy that combines military, economic and political dimensions to frustrate rapid American gains and draw the United States into a protracted asymmetric conflict.

The most probable course of events remains the continuation of intensive air strikes, potentially accompanied by limited ground operations at strategic locations. A prolonged ground invasion remains unlikely, with the conflict continuing within an asymmetric warfare framework, in which neither side can rapidly assert dominance, instead relying on a combination of military and political instruments to pursue its objectives.
The war must be brought to an end without delay

History teaches us that an unbroken chain of military “victories” inevitably reaches a tipping point at which strategic advantage is eroded, resources are depleted and legitimacy is compromised. Napoleon Bonaparte fell after conquering half of Europe, Alexander the Great confronted the limits of his armies despite remarkable conquests, and the United States suffered defeat in Vietnam, even though it now maintains strong economic relations with the country. The historical lesson remains clear: what appears today as a series of American successes against Iran could, in time, evolve into a protracted conflict that ultimately leads to defeat.

The United States and President Trump now face a historic opportunity to demonstrate genuine leadership: to bring the conflict to an immediate end, return to the negotiating table and provide security guarantees for all parties. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Israel must not, through pressure or incitement, push the administration into further escalation. While their security concerns may be legitimate, they cannot be pursued at the cost of American lives or global stability.

Peace is not a sign of weakness – it is the highest form of strategic victory. The time has come for all parties to return to that objective before “victories” become irreversible. Having already demonstrated that he can bring wars to an end faster than his predecessors, Donald Trump must once again embrace the role of peacemaker. His aspirations for the Nobel Peace Prize will not be realised through further military strikes, but through the ability to bring an end to a conflict set in motion by others. The region and the wider world expect no less – and they expect it without delay.

IFIMES – International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies, based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, has a special consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council ECOSOC/UN in New York since 2018, and it is the publisher of the international scientific journal “European Perspectives.” Available at: https://www.europeanperspectives.org/en

Iran–Israel conflict since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Available at: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/irans-revolutionary-guards

Chinese proverb: “Victory, victory, victory… until defeat is reached”. Available at: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12087476-victory-victory-victory-until-defeat-is-reached

Chatham House warns that Israeli strikes could accelerate Iran’s nuclear program by strengthening hardliner arguments for a bomb. Available at: www.chathamhouse.org/2025/06/israels-strikes-might-accelerate-irans-race-towards-nuclear-weapons?utm_source

Pentagon preparing for weeks of ground operations in Iran, The Washington Post, 29 March 2026. Available at: www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/03/28/trump-iran-ground-troops-marines/?utm_source

IFIMES

IFIMES – International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan studies, based in Ljubljana, Slovenia, has special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council ECOSOC/UN since 2018. IFIMES is also the publisher of the biannual international scientific journal European Perspectives. IFIMES gathers and selects various information and sources on key conflict areas in the world. The Institute analyses mutual relations among parties with an aim to promote the importance of reconciliation, early prevention/preventive diplomacy and disarmament/ confidence building measures in the regional or global conflict resolution of the existing conflicts and the role of preventive actions against new global disputes.