The Unwritten War

On the 32nd night of the war, the sirens sound again in Tel Aviv.

It is the particular rhythm of it that rewrites the nervous system. Not the explosion itself, which by now has become an abstraction, a thing that happens to other coordinates. It is the interval between the alert and the impact, the eight to 12 minutes during which an entire country descends underground and waits in the blue-white glow of phone screens for the concussion or the silence, and then emerges to check the sky and the news and the group chats, and then returns to the business of living until the next alert, which will come in two hours or four or 45 minutes, because the Islamic Republic of Iran, headless and degraded but not yet dead, is still firing.

In shelters across central Israel, parents manage the nightly choreography: infant into the crib in the sealed room, older children roused from half-sleep, the dog corralled, the door sealed, the wait. In Dubai, airport workers clear debris from a runway hit by a Shahed drone. In Erbil, Kurdish peshmerga bury six of their own, killed by a Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) rocket. In Tehran, a man is filmed saying “Thank you, Trump” outside a police station destroyed by American airstrikes in Chitgar. In the Bekaa Valley, a Captagon lab operates through the night, its operators indifferent to the ideology of their former patrons, attentive only to the market price of fenethylline in Riyadh.

This is the war at 32 days. It is many wars at once, and almost none of them are being discussed with the seriousness they demand.

The kinetic campaign is proceeding with tactical brilliance. The Supreme Leader is dead. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) high command is shattered; Iran’s missile infrastructure has been significantly degraded. These are achievements of the first order, the product of superb intelligence, precise coordination between Washington and Jerusalem, and a presidential decision that was strategically sound, morally justified, and long overdue. They have also, as the International Energy Agency has noted, produced the largest supply disruption in the history of global oil markets, a cost that underscores the urgency of moving from the kinetic phase to the institutional one.

But a war is won not by its opening campaign, but by what is built in the space that the opening campaign creates. And that space, as of this writing, is empty. No transition architecture, no theory of succession, and no institutional framework connecting the destruction of the Islamic Republic to the construction of something durable that serves American interests and Iranian aspirations for a generation.

What follows is an attempt to fill that space before it fills itself, as empty spaces in the Middle East invariably do, with chaos, warlords, and the enterprising violence of men who understand that a vacuum is not a problem but an opportunity.

Consider, if you will, a peculiar silence.

Thirty-two days have elapsed since President Donald Trump authorized Operation Epic Fury, and in that interval the world’s most formidable analytical apparatus has produced an extraordinary effusion of commentary on the conflict’s surface phenomena: the trajectory of each missile, the oscillation of each barrel price, the diplomatic choreography of each Gulf foreign ministry communiqué. Brookings has offered thoughtful daily briefings, ACLED has constructed an invaluable crisis hub, the Atlantic Council has mapped Gulf reactions with considerable granularity, and Chatham House has assessed Gulf military options with professional rigor. These are serious institutions employing serious scholars, and the quality of their diagnostic work is not in question.

What is in question is the orientation of the inquiry itself.

For the curious incident, to borrow the old formulation, is not what the analytical establishment has said, but what it has not said. Not one of these institutions has produced a comprehensive theory of what replaces the order currently being dismantled or published the institutional architecture of transition. Not one has offered the president a blueprint connecting the kinetic destruction of the Islamic Republic to the construction of something durable in its place. The policy recommendations that have emerged lean overwhelmingly toward ceasefire frameworks, de-escalation mechanisms, and diplomatic off-ramps. Brookings scholars have warned that the war could “expand into a regional war” and urged caution. The Arab Center in Washington has called for collective diplomatic response. Chatham House has counseled Gulf states against joining the strikes, arguing the risks are “considerable.” These are respectable positions held by serious people. They are also, in the present circumstance, profoundly insufficient. The debate between “continue the war” and “negotiate an exit” obscures the more fundamental question that neither camp has adequately addressed: what does the post-regime order look like, and who is building it?

The anti-war chorus, predictably, has filled the remaining void with procedural objections and legalistic hand-wringing. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed briefs, War Powers Resolutions have been introduced and defeated, and campus protesters have recycled their Gaza placards. Their position, stripped of its constitutional costuming, is that the Islamic Republic should have been left intact to continue enriching uranium, funding Hezbollah, and machine-gunning protesters in the streets of Tehran. That position deserves to be named for what it is: a counsel of permanent managed decline dressed up as prudence.

Let us dispense with it and address the actual problem.

President Trump was right to act. The theocratic regime in Tehran had spent four decades killing Americans, arming proxies from Beirut to Baghdad, pursuing nuclear weapons in sustained defiance of the international community, and, in January 2026, massacring tens of thousands of its own citizens. The notion that this regime posed “no imminent threat” is not a serious analytical position. It is the same species of willful naivety that allowed North Korea to cross the nuclear threshold, permitted the Assad regime to gas Syrian children without consequence, and produced the catastrophic 2015 nuclear deal, which merely rented Iranian restraint at the price of $150 billion in unfrozen assets. The question now is not whether the war should have been launched. It is whether the United States will see it through with the discipline that decisive victory demands, or whether it will repeat the pattern that has disfigured American military intervention for a generation: a brilliant opening campaign followed by institutional amnesia about what comes next.

Trump has the tools, the leverage, and a window of opportunity that will not remain open indefinitely. What he needs is the plan.

What follows is an attempt to identify its essential components—the load-bearing elements without which no transition architecture can hold.

Shutterstock

Clausewitz called it Nebel des Krieges, the fog of war—the irreducible gap between what commanders believe is happening and what the ground actually holds. In the first month of the Iran campaign, that fog has been thick, and its distortions have produced a characteristic wartime pathology: the premature declaration of victory.

The White House press secretary stated that the military operation should wrap up in four to six weeks, even as an internal Pentagon memo suggested months. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared that Iran is “badly losing” on Day 10. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on March 19 that “we are winning, and Iran is decapitated.”

Seventy-two hours later, two Iranian ballistic missiles struck cities in southern Israel, with one hitting near Dimona.

The timeline discrepancies are noise, while premature declarations are vanity. Neither should obscure the underlying strategic reality, which is this: the war’s opening campaign has been a tactical triumph. Khamenei is dead, the IRGC high command is shattered, and significant portions of Iran’s missile infrastructure have been degraded. These are real and consequential achievements. But the history of American military intervention in the Middle East is a graveyard of opening victories that metastasized into strategic defeats. Baghdad fell in three weeks; the insurgency lasted eight years. The failure was not one of arms, but of architecture. No one had designed the state that was supposed to follow the one that had been destroyed.

“The Iranians have a vote on when the war ends,” former Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned at CERAWeek. “I don’t think we can just walk away from it.” Mattis is correct on the narrow point. But the conclusion to draw is not that the war was a mistake, but that it demands the same sustained commitment to its conclusion that was brought to its commencement. President Trump demonstrated this principle when he authorized the capture of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela in January and immediately elevated Vice President Delcy Rodriguez as interim leader. Whatever its imperfections, the operation embodied a theory of succession. Iran demands the same discipline, but at vastly greater scale—and much higher stakes.

The doctrine that conflicts end through decisive victory, not managed equilibrium, is correct. But victory is not merely the destruction of the enemy’s capacity to fight: it is the establishment of an order that serves American interests for a generation. That requires planning of a kind different than targeting.

And it requires it now.

Shutterstock

Every successful political transition in the modern era has resolved itself around a single, deceptively elementary question: who is in charge?

In occupied Germany, the answer was articulated before the final bombs fell: Allied authorities administering a carefully vetted German civil service within an institutional framework designed in Washington and London. The result was the most successful post-conflict reconstruction in the history of statecraft. In post-Saddam Iraq, the answer was no one, and the result was the Islamic State.

President Trump has the opportunity to ensure that Iran follows the first trajectory. But doing so requires confronting a legitimacy crisis that is already metastasizing behind the fog of war, and it requires eschewing the blunt instrument of military occupation. The United States will not occupy Iran. No serious strategist proposes it. The country is too large, the population too numerous, the terrain too complex, and the political appetite for another multi-decade ground commitment in the Middle East nonexistent. What is required is not occupation but orchestration: the shaping of conditions under which Iranians govern themselves, supported by American diplomatic, financial, and intelligence instruments channeled through legitimate transitional institutions built by Iranians for Iranians. This is a harder task than occupation—not easier—because it demands that the architecture be designed before the moment of collapse, not improvised afterward.

Iran’s opposition is real, substantial, and fractured along fault lines that Western capitals have been reluctant to examine honestly. The Washington Institute documented in 2023 that opposition groups are divided and offer competing claims of representation and leadership, while the United States Institute of Peace profiled the major factions. The U.K. House of Commons Library found that “their popularity within Iran is also uncertain.” These assessments, however competent, predate the single most consequential variable in Iranian domestic politics: the January massacre.

Between late December 2025 and mid-January 2026, the Islamic Republic killed somewhere between 7,000 and 32,000 of its own citizens. The lower figure comes from the Human Rights Activists News Agency, which documented each case individually. The higher comes from Iranian health officials speaking under protection of anonymity. Whatever the true number, the massacre produced a moral ledger that will determine the politics of transition for a generation.

Now observe the structural problem.

The people who buried those dead, ran underground clinics in basements while IRGC forces swept the streets above, and maintained the rooftop chant networks night after night while security forces fired upward at darkened windows hold a form of political authority that no credential, diaspora résumé, or Georgetown degree can replicate. They possess blood equity: the legitimacy that accrues exclusively to those who risked everything when the outcome was uncertain and the cost of failure a shallow grave.

Western capitals, by institutional reflex, will default to engaging high-profile diaspora opposition figures. Such individuals possess diplomatic fluency, media access, and the ability to navigate international legal frameworks for unfreezing sovereign assets—in no way trivial qualifications. The diaspora contains an enormous reservoir of engineers, physicians, lawyers, economists, and administrators who will be invaluable in reconstruction. But the gap between the diaspora and the internal resistance is not purely geographic, but experiential and, increasingly, political. The lesson of Ahmed Chalabi in Iraq, Zahir Shah in Afghanistan, and the internationally recognized government in Tripoli is uniform: externally installed leadership that lacks an organic connection to the forces that bled for the transition will be rejected.

The administration has the option of designing something better in a pre-negotiated framework dividing authority along functional lines: diaspora figures managing outward-facing portfolios such as central bank stabilization, International Monetary Fund and World Bank liaison, and sovereign asset recovery. Internal security, transitional justice, and municipal governance constitutionally ceded to vetted local resistance commanders. The division is not ideological but operational, matching capabilities to requirements.

The president should direct the National Security Council to begin this mapping immediately. And the mapping must go deeper than personalities. The granular work of identifying which civil society structures, bazaari networks, labor syndicates, tribal authorities, and professional guilds exist in each of Iran’s 31 provinces has not been done in any publicly available form. Without this ground-level intelligence, transition planning is an abstraction drawn on a whiteboard by people who have never set foot in Tabriz.

Shutterstock

On May 16, 2003, L. Paul Bremer issued Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 1 removing approximately 30,000 Ba’ath Party members were removed from public employment. A week later, Order No. 2 dissolved the Iraqi military, putting 400,000-armed men out of work overnight.

The lights went out, the water stopped flowing, and the hospitals closed. In the vacuum was born an insurgency that would eventually call itself the Islamic State.

President Trump, who has publicly and rightly criticized that war’s execution, has the opportunity to demonstrate that the United States has absorbed the most expensive lesson in its recent military history.

Iran’s state apparatus employs roughly 2.5 million civil servants. The Artesh, Iran’s conventional military distinct from the IRGC, comprises approximately 420,000 personnel, including engineers, logistics specialists—the technicians who keep a nation of 88 million alive. The Ministry of Energy’s Tavanir subsidiary manages the national power grid. Municipal water systems, telecommunications networks, hospitals, transportation networks: all of it depends on mid-level technocrats whose only connection to the regime may be a mandatory Basij membership card obtained for university admission in the way an ambitious young American might join the Rotary Club.

A sweeping ideological purge will produce exactly what it produced in Iraq: institutional collapse, mass unemployment, and a population without electricity, clean water, or functioning hospitals—a ready-made insurgent recruitment pool of technically skilled, aggrieved, newly unemployed men who know where the infrastructure is and how to destroy it.

The alternative is what should be understood as Conditional Functional Immunity: localized operational tribunals that vet mid-level managers on a strictly functional basis. The water engineer who held a Basij card keeps his job. The Artesh logistics officer who never fired on protesters receives amnesty, but the IRGC intelligence officer who directed the January massacre does not.

Grid stability trumps ideological purity, not because ideology is unimportant, but because a dead population cannot build a democracy.

This requires pre-planned criteria developed now, before the regime falls, not improvised decisions made in the chaos of collapse by whoever happens to hold the local monopoly on violence.

Shutterstock

Here we arrive at what is perhaps the most consequential analytical error in the entire strategic discourse: the persistent treatment of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a military organization.

It is not. It is a corporate conglomerate that happens to possess an army, a navy, a missile force, and a nuclear program.

The Clingendael Institute’s December 2025 report documented the phenomenon with clinical precision, describing what it termed the “military-bonyad complex” (large state-affiliated charitable trusts in Iran) and estimating that the IRGC and its affiliated religious foundations account for over 50 percent of Iran’s GDP. A CISES analysis confirmed these figures. Fortune reported the empire’s reach: oil, construction, banking, telecommunications, agriculture, medicine, real estate. The Free Iran Scholars Network documented that between 2005 and 2013, over $120 billion in ostensibly “privatized” public assets were transferred to IRGC-affiliated entities through opaque, single-bid auctions. Khatam al-Anbiya, the Corps’ construction headquarters, received a $1.3 billion no-bid pipeline contract and controls Tehran’s international airport. Setad, answering directly to the Supreme Leader, holds an estimated $95 billion in confiscated assets.

A March 29 Wall Street Journal report found that the IRGC’s loyalty is “underpinned by a system of economic incentives that make the regime’s collapse a direct threat to the livelihood of its acolytes.” As the World Tribune distilled the finding: “The tie that binds in Iran’s IRGC regime is privilege, not fanaticism.”

Now attend to the deduction.

If the binding agent is economic rather than ideological, then the mechanism of accelerated regime collapse is economic rather than kinetic. A general who controls a $500 million construction portfolio operates on a fundamentally different calculus than a Basij ideologue with nothing to lose. One can be turned; the other can only be neutralized. The United States should be mapping these incentives at the individual commander level and designing calibrated offers: asset protection in exchange for institutional surrender, with amnesty for cooperation, and targeted financial strangulation for resistance. This costs a fraction of what sustained bombing costs, and it strikes directly at the structural ligament that holds the regime together.

And when that ligament snaps, when the Supreme Leader’s authority vanishes entirely, the legal and religious shielding of the bonyad empires evaporates with it.

What follows will not be an orderly audit.

It will be a scramble. Surviving commanders and organized crime syndicates and opportunistic militias racing to seize factories and liquidate corporate treasuries into offshore crypto-wallets, destroy property deeds, and strip copper wiring from the walls of state-owned enterprises—all happening simultaneously across 31 provinces in a country the size of Alaska. The 1990s Russian privatization debacle, in which uncontrolled state asset transfers to connected insiders produced an oligarch class that permanently captured the political economy, is the cautionary precedent.

An armed Economic Stabilization Task Force, prepared to physically occupy bonyad headquarters and freeze assets the moment central authority collapses, is the difference between an Iranian economy that can finance its own reconstruction and a carcass picked clean by vultures.

Shutterstock

We arrive now at a phenomenon so elegant in its destructive simplicity that it might have been devised by a malevolent actuary rather than a military adversary.

Military planners appear to believe that the physical neutralization of IRGC naval assets and coastal batteries will produce the immediate resumption of energy commerce through the Strait of Hormuz. This belief reflects a dangerous misunderstanding of how global trade actually functions. The ultimate arbiter of maritime commerce is not the U.S. Fifth Fleet, but the London-based insurance syndicates that underwrite War Risk Premiums on every commercial vessel transiting a conflict zone. Even if allied navies declare the waterway secure, actuarial risk models will price premiums at levels that mathematically negate cargo profit margins. The Joint War Committee has already designated the surrounding waters as high-risk.

The Strait can be militarily open and commercially closed. Mathematics, not munitions, will keep it that way.

The International Energy Agency’s March 2026 Oil Market Report called it the “largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.” The Dallas Federal Reserve modeled that a one-quarter closure would raise West Texas Intermediate to $98 per barrel and lower global gross domestic product growth by 2.9 percentage points. Bloomberg Economics projected that at $170 per barrel, the stagflationary shock “could shift everything from the path ahead for central banks to the outcome of the U.S. midterm elections.” Sheikh Nawaf al-Sabah, CEO of Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, called it “an attack holding the world’s economy hostage.” Chevron CEO Mike Wirth warned of “very real, physical manifestations of the closure working their way around the world.” Paul Sankey of Sankey Research described it as “the worst I’ve seen … possibly since 1973,” and the Congressional Research Service produced its chokepoint assessment. Kpler’s vessel tracking analysis confirmed that “the withdrawal of commercial operators, major oil companies, and insurers has created a de facto closure for most global shipping.”

The CERAWeek consensus: reopen by mid-April or the disruptions double.

President Trump has the option of breaking this blockade. The instrument is an Allied Sovereign Underwriting Framework in which governments assume financial liability for hull and cargo losses, acting as insurers of last resort until organic market confidence is restored. The War Shipping Administration performed precisely this function during the Second World War. The mechanism exists in institutional memory; it requires only presidential direction to activate.

The cascading effects extend well beyond petroleum. Up to 40 percent of global nitrogen fertilizer exports transit the Strait. Urea is up 50 percent. Brazil imports 85 percent of its fertilizer. Qatar produces a third of the world’s helium. International Energy Agency head Fatih Birol warned that “no country will be immune to the effects of this crisis if it continues in this direction.” Dallas Fed director of the Center for Energy and the Economy Lutz Kilian added that poorer countries will be hit hardest “because they will be outbid when competing for the remaining oil and natural gas.”

Reopening the Strait is not energy policy: it is a precondition for maintaining the international coalition that sustains the war effort itself.

Shutterstock

The bombing of Natanz and Fordow addressed the existence of Iran’s nuclear hardware, but not its software.

Iran’s nuclear program employs thousands of specialized physicists, centrifuge engineers, metallurgists, and weapons-design researchers. The collapse of the state apparatus leaves these individuals unemployed, stripped of pensions, and unmonitored by a domestic counter-intelligence service that no longer functions. They are, as of this writing, the most dangerous free agents on earth: a dispersed constellation of proliferation-relevant expertise answerable to no authority, monitored by no institution, and available to the highest bidder.

Consider the precedent. In 1991, the dissolution of the Soviet Union left tens of thousands of nuclear scientists across 11 time zones with uncertain employment and eroding salaries. The fear was not hypothetical for, as the National Security Archive documented, the question was whether the Soviet collapse would produce “a nuclear Yugoslavia spread over eleven time zones.”

Because of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, it did not.

Nunn-Lugar provided civilian employment for over 22,000 former WMD scientists at a cost of $300 to $475 million per year. The Arms Control Association called excess weapons scientists “a major root cause of the proliferation threat.” The Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s own assessment confirmed that the program “reduced the risk of proliferation when political negotiations and inspections failed.”

The cost was negligible relative to the defense budget. The return was the single most successful nonproliferation initiative in the history of arms control.

Iran requires the equivalent. President Trump should direct the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to prepare an Iran-specific Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) framework for immediate implementation upon confirmed state collapse.

The goals: direct financial buyouts, secure pensions, and implement employment guarantees in civilian energy or environmental remediation.

Centrifuges can be destroyed, but the people who built them cannot. Every nuclear physicist who leaves Iran without a safety net is a walking proliferation crisis, a potential asset for Pyongyang, transnational syndicates, or any well-funded non-state actor seeking turnkey radiological capability.

The Axis of Resistance is a financial organism as much as a military one. Hezbollah alone receives an estimated $700 million to $1 billion annually from the IRGC Quds Force. Iraqi Shia militias under the Popular Mobilization Forces umbrella command roughly $3.5 billion in annual budget and 230,000 personnel. The Houthis control Yemeni ports and maritime chokepoints that generate revenue through smuggling and taxation of commerce.

The decapitation of Tehran’s command structure will permanently sever or severely degrade these funding pipelines.

The proxies will not quietly disarm—they never do. But they will adapt, and this adaptation is already visible to anyone who knows where to look.

Hezbollah has been deeply embedded in the Captagon trade for years, its fighters-turned-manufacturers operating pill presses in the same border valleys where they once stockpiled Katyushas. Carnegie documented that “production also occurred in regions where the party maintained a military presence.” The West Point Combating Terrorism Center tracked the post-Assad dispersal of Captagon production to new transit hubs across Lebanon, Sudan, Sierra Leone, and Yemen. The Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI) estimated regime-aligned actors controlled approximately $7.3 billion in Captagon revenues. The U.S. Treasury sanctioned individuals trafficking the drug in what it described as “a billion-dollar illicit enterprise.”

David Daoud of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told the New York Sun: “Hezbollah is strapped for cash. They need money to survive. Wherever they can get it, they’ll go for it.” Caroline Rose of the New Lines Institute warned that “Hezbollah-linked networks are seeking to ramp up illicit operations as a way of both reducing their dependence on Iran and generating alternative revenue streams.” The Foreign Policy Research Institute observed that the Popular Mobilization Forces’s “hybrid status, both state-affiliated and externally aligned, allows them to operate with legitimacy and autonomy, often beyond government control.”

Deprived of state sponsorship, these organizations will hyper-accelerate narco-trafficking while escalating aggressive racketeering and extortion against Lebanese and Iraqi civilians. The fenethylline-and-Kalashnikov economy will metastasize from the Bekaa Valley to the Persian Gulf, converting what were once ideological proxy forces into transnational criminal enterprises indistinguishable in function from the Sinaloa Cartel or the ’Ndrangheta, but with the additional complication of retaining military-grade weaponry and the infrastructure of a state-within-a-state.

The risk is precise: the United States dismantles the theocratic threat only to fertilize a criminal one. The Colombian model of negotiated demobilization, whatever its imperfections, demonstrates that armed groups can be absorbed into civilian life when economic incentives are structured correctly. The president should direct the development of a proxy demobilization and alternative livelihood framework integrated into the broader transition plan, addressing this trajectory before it becomes irreversible.

Somewhere in Iran at this hour, in basement server rooms and fireproof vaults and the filing cabinets of provincial Ministry of Intelligence and Security nodes, a contest is underway that will shape the country’s future more decisively than any airstrike or ground operation.

The Ministry of Intelligence and the IRGC Intelligence Organization maintain archives containing decades of surveillance records, informant rosters, interrogation transcripts, and financial kompromat on millions of Iranian citizens. These are the files that document who collaborated: who informed, who was coerced, who resisted, and who did nothing. They form the chain-of-evidence backbone of any future accountability process.

After German reunification, the decision to preserve the Stasi’s 111 kilometers of files through the Stasi Records Agency (BStU) enabled measured accountability through which a society could confront its past without being consumed by it. In Iraq, however, Ba’ath Party records partially preserved at the Hoover Institution were supplemented by many that were destroyed or seized by militia groups, and the result was retribution without justice, score-settling without closure, and a wound reopened with every seized document traded on the black market of political revenge.

If Iran’s intelligence archives fracture into rival hands, the data will become a weapon of mass political destruction. Extortion of the nascent transitional government, vigilante bloodletting against exposed informants, and the permanent derailment of any formalized Truth and Reconciliation process. The CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) should be directed to prepare target packages for these facilities now, designating them for physical quarantine the moment central authority collapses.

In Sistan-Baluchestan, Kurdistan, Khuzestan, and East Azerbaijan, something is happening that has yet to be named, much less addressed.

Central authority is paralyzed. Federal funding has stopped, and directives from Tehran arrive sporadically or not at all. And yet the garbage is collected and the hospitals still function and the water still runs, operated not by the Islamic Republic but by low-level civil servants and local tribal councils and municipal workers who continue to perform their duties out of sheer necessity and the human impulse to maintain order in the absence of authority, the way a severed nerve still fires long after the brain has ceased to send instructions.

These provinces are solidifying into de facto autonomous zones, each developing governance structures that reflect local ethnic identity rather than Persian-centric central authority. Any transition framework that attempts forcible recentralization under a unitary model will ignite secessionist insurgencies, particularly in Khuzestan, where the Arab population sits atop Iran’s oil reserves, and among Iranian Azerbaijanis, who constitute roughly a quarter of the total population and have cultural ties to Turkey and the Republic of Azerbaijan. An asymmetric, federalized constitutional model that integrates these autonomous zones is both more realistic and more likely to produce a stable, pro-American Iran.

In the margins of the maritime discourse, there is a curious omission. The analytical focus has been fixed on the physical contest for the Strait: the IRGC Navy’s fast boats, the coastal batteries, the mine-laying capabilities. But a far larger maritime problem lurking in the shadows will outlast the kinetic campaign by years.

Iran has cultivated an armada of unregulated oil tankers that constitutes one of the most sophisticated sanctions-evasion networks ever constructed by a nation-state. By the third quarter of 2025, according to maritime intelligence firm Windward, more than 1,900 vessels were operating as part of the global dark fleet, “reflecting how sanctions pressure has driven scale, coordination, and adaptation rather than deterrence.” Iran’s share of this flotilla is estimated at 400 to 600 vessels. The Middle East Institute noted that sanctioned crude now represents “an estimated 18 percent of global tanker capacity,” a figure that has been growing. Kpler’s analysis confirmed that legitimate commercial operators have withdrawn from the Strait, leaving primarily Iranian and Chinese-flagged vessels.

The mechanics are precise and practiced. Iranian oil loads at Kharg Island, undergoes ship-to-ship transfers in the Gulf of Oman or near Malaysia, and arrives at Chinese ports relabeled as Malaysian or Indonesian origin. The tankers disable Automatic Identification System (AIS) tracking, use shell companies registered in Panama, the Marshall Islands, Barbados, the Cook Islands, and Cameroon, and operate outside normal insurance markets. The U.S. Treasury sanctioned over 875 persons, vessels, and aircraft tied to Iranian sanctions evasion in 2025 alone, targeting what it described as “a closed loop between energy exports and weapons development.” The State Department identified 14 additional shadow fleet vessels in February 2026, noting that they “have regularly engaged in dark activity and other deceptive shipping practices, endangering other vessels and legitimate trade flows.”

As Fortune observed, the dark fleet “did not emerge because the maritime system is broken. It emerged because the system is built on voluntary participation, all theoretically ensured by market forces.” The system worked for decades because “opting out was more costly than opting in. What changed is that international sanctions made compliance ruinously expensive and politically disastrous for some countries.”

Now attend to the deductive problem: in a post-collapse scenario where sanctions are eventually lifted so that legitimate, insured maritime trade resumes, this massive black-market armada faces total unemployment overnight. The operators possess highly specialized expertise in document fraud, flag-of-convenience manipulation, AIS spoofing, ship-to-ship transfer logistics, and clandestine financing through cryptocurrency and hawala networks. These are not casual smugglers, but professionals who have spent years building the most efficient sanctions-evasion infrastructure in the world, and they will not quietly retire.

The probable trajectories are sobering. First, a pivot to organized maritime piracy in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, leveraging existing knowledge of shipping lanes, naval patrol patterns, and vessel vulnerabilities. The dark fleet already operates in the same waters where Somali piracy cost the global economy an estimated $6 billion annually at its peak. Second, repurposing as logistics infrastructure for the narco-trafficking operations described above, providing Hezbollah and Iraqi militias with a ready-made maritime distribution network for Captagon and other contraband. Third, and perhaps most consequentially, wholesale quiet acquisition by Chinese state-aligned entities seeking to absorb a pre-built, deniable logistics network for strategic competition purposes. Beijing has already demonstrated through its fishing fleet and maritime militia that gray-zone maritime operations are central to its competitive strategy. An experienced dark fleet, available for purchase at distressed prices, would be an asset of considerable strategic value.

The United States should be proactive. A sovereign fleet buy-back or scrappage subsidy program, offering operators above-market value for voluntary decommissioning, would cost a fraction of the piracy, smuggling, and strategic competition it would prevent. The alternative is to allow a specialized criminal infrastructure to disperse into the global maritime commons, where it will metastasize in ways that no subsequent enforcement campaign can easily reverse.

Shutterstock

As loyalist forces lose their grip on territorial strongholds, the final act of a dying regime will be written not in diplomacy but in arson.

This is not speculation. It is the observable pattern of every collapsing authoritarian state with industrial infrastructure and a security apparatus that knows its commanders will face accountability. When Saddam’s forces retreated from Kuwait in 1991, they set fire to over 600 oil wells. The fires took nine months to extinguish and released an estimated 2 billion barrels of oil into the environment. The environmental remediation cost exceeded $40 billion, with the toxic plume blanketing an area the size of Connecticut. ISIS, during its retreat from Mosul and Tikrit, systematically poisoned water supplies, booby-trapped residential buildings, and destroyed sewage treatment facilities, creating public health emergencies that persisted for years after the military campaign ended. The IRGC, which possesses both the capability and the organizational culture of a cornered animal, will follow suit.

The targets of opportunity are extensive and strategically devastating.

Khuzestan’s oil infrastructure, including the Abadan refinery and the Ahwaz production fields, represents the single largest concentration of petrochemical assets in Iran. Torching these facilities would blanket the region in toxic atmospheric soot, render the province uninhabitable for months, and destroy the resource base upon which Iran’s economic recovery depends. The desalination plants along the Persian Gulf coast, critical for population centers in Bushehr and Hormozgan provinces already suffering from severe water stress, could be sabotaged with minimal effort and maximum humanitarian consequence. The Shatt al-Arab/Arvand Rud basin, which serves as the primary freshwater source for both the Iranian city of Abadan and the Iraqi city of Basra, could be poisoned or mined, creating a transboundary environmental disaster affecting millions on both sides of the border. Dam infrastructure in seismically active zones, including the Karun River cascade and the Dez Dam, could be targeted for catastrophic failure, producing flash floods and contamination cascading across multiple downstream provinces.

The Middle East Forum documented that Iran’s water crisis has already cascaded into agricultural collapse, energy grid failure, and urban infrastructure decay, leaving a nation of 88 million people operating at the margins of systemic viability before a single bomb fell. This is a nation where agriculture accounts for approximately 92 percent of water usage, where chronic aquifer depletion has been accelerating for decades, and where the infrastructure connecting urban populations to clean water is already operating at the margins of capacity. In this context, deliberate environmental weaponization would not merely create a humanitarian problem, but would trigger a cascading systems failure: water scarcity producing food insecurity, food insecurity producing mass displacement, and mass displacement overwhelming transitional governance systems before they have had time to establish authority.

The lesson of the Kuwait oil fires is that environmental remediation cannot be treated as a Phase IV afterthought. The fires were extinguished not by military forces but by specialized international firefighting teams, predominantly from the United States, Canada, and Hungary, using techniques that did not exist at the scale required until they were improvised under emergency conditions. The cost was borne by Kuwait’s sovereign wealth fund, but Iran has no sovereign wealth fund, as its economy is collapsing. There is no financial backstop for remediation unless the international community, led by the United States and the Gulf states, pre-positions the capability.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) should integrate environmental rapid-response capabilities into its operational planning now, not as a reconstruction line item but as a vanguard element of the stabilization force. Water-engineering task forces, environmental assessment teams, and specialized hazmat units must arrive simultaneously with security forces, not months after them. The alternative is a population of 88 million people in a country where the water is poisoned, the oil fields are burning, and the desalination plants are destroyed. The population would have no choice but to migrate, producing a refugee crisis that would dwarf Syria’s and overwhelm every neighboring state’s absorptive capacity.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states entered this war as reluctant bystanders. Iran’s retaliatory strikes on all six member states transformed them into stakeholders with skin and blood in the outcome. The Arab Center DC assessed that the war “has eased, if not ended, the deepening rift between Saudi Arabia and the UAE.” The Times of Israel reported that most GCC countries now urge Washington to continue the war. One Gulf official insisted that “ending the war with Iran still in possession of the tools it is currently using to target the GCC would be a strategic disaster.” Anwar Gargash, adviser to the UAE president, framed the stakes in existential terms: “Our thinking does not stop at a ceasefire, but rather turns toward solutions that ensure lasting security.”

Chatham House has cautioned against Gulf offensive action, arguing the risks are “considerable.” But this counsel of restraint underestimates the degree to which the calculus has already shifted. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are not weighing abstract risk models, but burying their dead and watching Iranian drones hit their airports. The question is no longer whether the Gulf should be involved but how to channel its involvement. President Trump should capitalize aggressively. The Gulf states possess enormous financial resources, sophisticated military capabilities, and a newly urgent motivation to invest in regional security architecture. The war has created an alignment of interests between Washington, Jerusalem, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi that did not exist six weeks ago. This alignment will not persist indefinitely. It must be leveraged now, particularly as a source of reconstruction financing that reduces the burden on the American taxpayer and provides the Arab-state legitimacy that any transition framework will require.

This is a critical point. The United States will not occupy Iran. There will be no American military governor in Tehran, no Green Zone, no Coalition Provisional Authority. The Iraq model is not merely undesirable; it is operationally impossible in a country of 88 million people, geographically vast, ethnically diverse, and bristling with the residual capacity for asymmetric resistance. The strategic objective is not occupation but orchestration: shaping the conditions under which Iranians govern themselves, with American and allied support channeled through legitimate transitional institutions. The Gulf states are essential partners in this orchestration, providing both the financial resources and the regional credibility that Washington alone cannot supply.

Turkey, meanwhile, is almost entirely absent from the analytical discourse, an extraordinary omission that borders on institutional negligence. In February 2026, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan declined to directly answer whether Turkey should acquire nuclear weapons, but the OSW/Centre for Eastern Studies assessed that his remarks constituted a deliberate strategy of “strategic ambiguity”: “Ankara refrains from explicit declarations that it is prepared to develop a military nuclear programme, while simultaneously outlining red lines that could push it to do so.” The Centre noted that 72 percent of Turks do not believe NATO would defend their country in the event of aggression. Fidan himself criticized the Non-Proliferation Treaty for its “structural injustice,” arguing it preserves the strategic supremacy of the five permanent Security Council members.

The infrastructure is already in place. As the Middle East Forum documented, Unit 1 of the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant stands at 99 percent complete, financed and controlled by Russia’s Rosatom. In June 2025, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan issued a decree to massively expand Turkey’s production of medium- and long-range missiles, including the Cenk medium-range ballistic missile. “When paired with the 2026 commissioning of Akkuyu,” the analysis concluded, “the picture becomes clear: Turkey is building the two halves of a nuclear deterrent in parallel.” Israel Hayom warned that Turkey’s nuclear path “is a risk Israel cannot ignore,” noting that “the practical implication is that an infrastructure base is being built, which could, under certain conditions, help pave a path toward a military track.”

The question that should dominate nonproliferation analysis is whether Ankara draws a specific lesson from Iran’s fate: that non-nuclear states are vulnerable to regime change, and that only nuclear-armed states possess genuine sovereignty. As one analyst observed, “if the Middle East moves into a world where nuclear capability is treated as the only ironclad guarantee against regime-threatening force, then Turkey cannot afford to remain the exception. That logic is dangerous precisely because it is contagious.” The scenario, in which Turkey accelerates nuclear hedging, represents a proliferation risk that could dwarf the Iranian program this war was designed to eliminate. The administration must engage Ankara directly, and it must do so with the understanding that every day the Iran war continues without a clear endgame, the incentive structure for Turkish proliferation strengthens.

Russia’s inability to protect Iran has exposed the fiction of Russian strategic partnership. Moscow declared the strikes “unprovoked aggression” and took no action. A Russian tanker carrying oil to Cuba halted in the Atlantic well short of the island. The Russian military, consumed by Ukraine for more than four years, cannot project power in support of distant clients. Putin still hopes to keep Trump from supporting Kyiv, and that calculation constrains every Russian response.

This is a strategic windfall. If Russia cannot protect Iran, what is Russian partnership worth? The answer reverberates in every capital that has bet on Moscow as a counterweight to American power. But the windfall is perishable. If the United States fails to convert its military success into a durable political outcome, the lesson that reverberates will be different: that American power is destructive but not constructive, capable of breaking regimes but not of building anything in their place. That lesson would benefit Moscow and Beijing far more than the current one.

The coverage has noted Iran’s internet shutdowns. It has not covered what may be the most consequential technological battlefield of the entire conflict: the war for communications infrastructure inside Iran.

On January 8, 2026, the Iranian regime imposed what The Beiruter described as “total darkness,” shutting down fiber-optic networks, mobile data services, and fixed landlines. Cloudflare Radar showed Iran’s internet traffic collapsing almost to zero within hours. The shutdown was not a crude disconnection, but a coordinated, multi-layered suppression campaign combining a terrestrial internet kill switch with advanced military-grade electronic warfare systems targeting satellite-based communications. TechPolicy.Press assessed it as “not a single technical measure” but “a coordinated, integrated strategy executed through the state’s control over infrastructure” across legal, network, and satellite dimensions simultaneously.

Into this darkness, Starlink terminals became the last remaining channel for documentation and coordination. The scale of the smuggling operation was remarkable. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration covertly moved roughly 6,000 Starlink terminals into Iran after the December 2025 protests. Foreign Policy reported that “smuggled terminals enabled some Iranians to document strikes on government buildings and circulate footage despite official efforts to restrict communications.” SpaceX waived subscription fees for users inside Iran. Videos soon emerged, as The Beiruter documented, “showing hundreds of bodies in forensic centres near Tehran, images that transformed global understanding of the scale of the crackdown.”

The regime’s response was equally sophisticated. Iranian authorities deployed advanced radio-frequency jamming systems that, according to Military.com, degraded Starlink service and “in some areas, rendering terminals unusable.” Filter.Watch, an Iranian internet rights monitoring group, reported packet loss surging from 30 percent to over 80 percent. The IRGC conducted door-to-door searches, used drones and informants to locate satellite dishes, and arrested hundreds. Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence announced the detention of 500 people for “involvement in leaking sensitive information and coordinates of military sites abroad.” Possession of unlicensed Starlink equipment carries penalties up to ten years in prison, and in some cases, the death sentence under charges of espionage.

The infrastructure battle has deepened during the war itself. As conventional networks further deteriorated under strikes, Starlink’s role became what Foreign Policy called “genuinely paradoxical”: terminals enabled dissidents to document atrocities, but access may not have been limited to the opposition. Cybersecurity researchers alleged that some activities linked to Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence appeared to originate from Starlink IP ranges during the shutdown. The technology is a conduit, not a political actor. It carries whatever is transmitted through it.

This ambiguity does not diminish the strategic imperative, but sharpens it. The ability for people in Isfahan to know what is happening in Tabriz, for coordination to propagate across 31 provinces, for video evidence to reach the world outside, or for Reza Pahlavi’s eventual “final call” to actually be received by the audience for whom it is intended. Whoever controls the information architecture in the critical hours after regime collapse controls the narrative, the coordination capacity, and the political outcome. This is not a secondary consideration. It is the operational prerequisite for every other element of the transition plan: the legitimacy framework, the amnesty tribunals, the economic stabilization, and the federalization negotiations.

The administration should be investing heavily in this infrastructure now—and not merely in the hardware. The information warfare dimension is equally consequential. Regime-aligned actors have already attempted to manipulate accounts of the January massacres across social media platforms. AI-generated imagery circulates on both sides. Diaspora media competes with state propaganda for the attention of Iranians whose access to information is intermittent and mediated by whichever terminal happens to be functioning in their neighborhood. Deepfakes, social media manipulation, and narrative warfare are being deployed at scale.

Waging Nonviolence observed that “the frame that’s winning is, as ever, the simpler one.” The simpler frame should be America’s to define. But defining it requires more than broadcasting. It requires ensuring that the channels through which the frame travels are open, reliable, and trusted. The United States invested billions in Radio Free Europe during the Cold War because it understood that the information architecture was as strategically important as the military architecture. The same principle applies in 2026, with satellite terminals replacing shortwave radios and mesh networking replacing samizdat. The medium has changed, but the strategic logic has not.

President Trump launched this war from a position of sound strategic conviction. The theocratic regime in Tehran was the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, a serial massacrer of its own population, and a nuclear aspirant that had defied every diplomatic framework offered to constrain it. The 70 percent of Americans who told pollsters before the war that they opposed military action were expressing a reasonable preference for peace, but they were not rendering a strategic judgment. The strategic judgment, which the president made correctly, was that four decades of accommodation had produced not stability but the steady accumulation of threat.

More enriched uranium. More precise missiles. More powerful proxies. More dead Americans.

The danger now is not that the war was wrong. It is that it may be left unfinished.

The components of a complete victory are identifiable: a theory of political succession bridging diaspora capital and localized resistance legitimacy; bureaucratic continuity planning that averts the de-Ba’athification catastrophe; an economic stabilization mechanism securing bonyad assets before capital flight; a cooperative threat reduction program neutralizing nuclear personnel proliferation risk; an actuarial intervention reopening the Strait through sovereign underwriting; a proxy demobilization strategy preventing narco-criminalization; an environmental remediation vanguard; a communications architecture shaping the transition narrative; a federalization framework accommodating provincial autonomy; and a reconstruction plan pre-negotiated with international financial institutions.

The analytical establishment has produced valuable work on the war’s immediate dimensions. Brookings’ regional expertise, ACLED’s data infrastructure, the Atlantic Council’s Gulf analysis, CISES’ work on the IRGC’s economic architecture, Carnegie’s Captagon research: all of it has deepened our understanding of the conflict’s dynamics. But the policy recommendations emerging from this body of work trend overwhelmingly toward caution, de-escalation, and managed exit. The Brookings scholars who warn of regional conflagration, the Chatham House analysts who counsel Gulf restraint, the Council on Foreign Relations fellows who focus on congressional prerogatives: they are offering the analytical equivalent of a rearview mirror when the vehicle needs a navigation system. The question is no longer whether to drive: it is where to steer.

The White House must produce the integrated plan that the interagency process has not yet delivered. In 1945, the United States matched its military campaign in Europe with institutional architecture extending from de-Nazification tribunals to currency reform to the Marshall Plan. The result was an alliance structure that secured American interests for 75 years.

President Trump has the military position, the allied alignment, the Gulf financial resources, and the Iranian public’s demonstrated desire for change. He has the opportunity to produce the first decisive American strategic victory in the Middle East since Desert Storm. What separates that outcome from the alternative is not firepower, but clarity of purpose and conviction of planning: the willingness to see every phase of the campaign through to its conclusion, with the same resolve that characterized the decision to begin it.

American credibility, American interests, and the future of an entire region depend on whether that commitment is made now, while the choices are still available.

The sirens will sound again tonight in Tel Aviv, and in Haifa, and in the shelters beneath the apartment buildings of a country that has lived with this rhythm for longer than any population should be asked to endure. They will sound in Dubai and Kuwait City and Manama. And in the darkened apartments of Tehran and Isfahan and Tabriz, where the regime’s internet shutdowns have not yet silenced the Starlink terminals hidden in attics and basements, Iranians will refresh their feeds and wait for a signal, any signal, that someone on the other end of this war has thought beyond the next bomb to the morning after the last one falls.

That signal has not yet been sent.

It must be.