Approximately two weeks after his election, U.S. President Donald Trump created geopolitical tremors not only domestically, but also in Europe, and across the post-October 7, 2023, Middle East. His regional policies and Israel’s response to the attacks against it suggest an intention to reshape global dynamics—an assessment echoed by leading Iranian commentators.
They contend that the United States is planning a direct takeover of Gaza and Lebanon as part of a broader strategy of intervention in the Middle East. The objective is not merely economic dominance but also military control, allowing Washington to exert substantial influence over the region’s security architecture. According to this perspective, an American military presence in Gaza is deemed inevitable due to several key factors.
The first factor is Israel’s inability to suppress Palestinian resistance. According to Iranian commentators, every attempt by Israel to quell Palestinian uprisings in the West Bank and Gaza has failed, ultimately undermining regional normalization initiatives. Now, with Israel’s efforts to dismantle terrorist organizations proving unsuccessful, the United States finds itself compelled to intervene directly.
The second factor concerns the failure to advance , which America envisioned to transform Israel into a gateway for Western powers into the Middle East—mainly through the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) and normalization with Saudi Arabia. From this perspective, Hamas’s “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation disrupted these plans by exposing Israel’s limitations in controlling Gaza, thereby necessitating a more aggressive solution.
Strategic Repercussions and U.S. Military Calculations
Iranian analysts argue that Washington is also considering the forced displacement of Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan—a move that could destabilize these countries and threaten the regimes of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt and King Abdullah II in Jordan. Should these regimes collapse, Israel would face a more significant strategic threat, which in turn would necessitate direct American military intervention. Additionally, the partial relocation of CENTCOM headquarters to Tel Aviv is interpreted as a logical extension of this strategy, designed to enhance America’s regional operational capacity.
Tehran recognizes that if Gaza is not integrated into a reconstruction framework, it could become an unpredictable and volatile force, potentially triggering renewed escalation and a significant counterstrike against both Israel and the United States. From an American perspective, this threat necessitates direct territorial control to enable tighter oversight. Alongside Gaza, Iranian analysts highlight Lebanon as another focal point where the United States is maneuvering for indirect dominance through a three-phase strategy aimed at establishing a permanent Western presence in the country.
In the first phase, the United States will make an effort to establish a weak government that is not aligned with local political factions but operates under direct external influence. The second phase involves appointing high-ranking officials in Lebanon’s security, judicial, and economic institutions who would advance pro-American interests and facilitate Hizbullah’s disarmament. The third phase focuses on gaining control over strategic sectors, such as energy and telecommunications, thereby ensuring Lebanon’s economic dependence on Western entities.
The Role of Lebanon and U.S. Strategic Infrastructure
Parallel to these measures, Iranian commentators emphasize the completion of the largest U.S. embassy in the Middle East, located in Beirut, which they perceive more as an intelligence and military hub than a conventional diplomatic facility. According to this analysis, the embassy will serve as a control center for intelligence operations and security monitoring throughout the Levant, particularly in Lebanon and Syria. Furthermore, establishing a private port under American supervision is another step toward securing dominance over Lebanon’s maritime transport arteries.
Ultimately, Iranian analysts assert that these actions align with a broader U.S. effort to weaken Hizbullah and dismantle Palestinian refugee camps under the pretext of improving living conditions and ensuring stability in Lebanon. According to these projections, this trajectory is expected to culminate in an official visit by Trump to Beirut and the grand opening of the new U.S. embassy—an event that Iranian commentators interpret as a formal declaration of direct American presence in Lebanon. These developments, they argue, are merely one component of a larger interventionist agenda extending to Iraq, Yemen, and even Iran itself.
The Indirect War
Iranian analysts perceive these developments as indicative of a new form of warfare that is waged indirectly yet significantly reshapes the regional landscape. In their view, U.S. involvement in Gaza and Lebanon should not be analyzed solely within the framework of Trump’s or former President Joe Biden’s policies. Rather, U.S. involvement must be understood as part of a long-term strategic endeavor to create a new security and economic reality that serves Washington’s interests and its allies.
From Tehran’s perspective, American involvement across the region is not a series of isolated measures but part of a comprehensive strategy designed to consolidate regional hegemony and weaken any forces opposing Western influence. This narrative is not solely directed at Iran’s direct allies—such as Hizbullah, the Houthis, Shiite militias, and Hamas—but also appears to be a broader attempt to engage Moscow and Beijing.
The underlying message is that Trump’s return to power is not merely a regional issue but a calculated step within a broader American strategy aimed at curbing Russian and Chinese influence in the Middle East and undermining their economic and security stability.
In this context, the Iranian portrayal of “American dominance” is not only a warning against direct military action but also a potentially desperate psychological tool—particularly since Trump’s election—designed to pressure global actors who oppose or fear American hegemony in the Middle East.
