作者： admin

In a notable shift of tone, prominent US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a known hawk and staunch supporter of military action against Iran, has publicly voiced apprehension regarding the scale of recent Israeli airstrikes on Iranian oil infrastructure. The strikes, which targeted over 30 oil depots in locations including Tehran and Karaj, resulted in widespread fires and significant environmental fallout, with residents reporting health issues from polluted air and ‘oily rain’.

While expressing admiration for Israel’s demonstrated capability to pressure the Iranian regime, Graham utilized social media platform X to issue a caution. He emphasized that the ultimate objective should be the liberation of the Iranian people and the eventual collapse of the current leadership. In this context, he urged strategic target selection to avoid crippling Iran’s oil-based economy, which he deemed essential for the nation’s potential rebirth and prosperity under a new government.

The extensive scope of the Israeli operation reportedly caught US officials off guard, leading to the first significant disagreement between the two allies since the onset of recent hostilities. According to a report from Axios, which cited informed officials, the strikes far exceeded US expectations following prior notification from Israel. A senior US official was quoted as stating, ‘We don’t think it was a good idea,’ with an adviser to former President Trump adding that the administration disliked the attack due to concerns over oil destruction and potential impacts on gasoline prices.

In a separate television appearance, Senator Graham framed the conflict in stark economic terms, predicting immense financial gain for the United States. He explicitly linked the campaign against Iran to the situation in Venezuela, asserting that control over the combined 31% of global oil reserves held by the two nations would form a powerful partnership and represent a ‘nightmare for China.’ His comments suggested a strategic connection between US actions against the governments of Iran and Venezuela and a goal of dominating global oil supplies. Graham also forecast a severe escalation of attacks, promising to ‘blow the hell out of these people’ and predicting the regime’s imminent collapse, followed by an era of unprecedented peace and prosperity.

As sustained military operations by American and Israeli forces continue to weaken Iran’s clerical regime, Washington is reportedly considering a strategic partnership with Kurdish factions to escalate pressure on Tehran. This potential alignment targets Iran’s northwestern Kurdish minority, a demographic comprising 8-17% of the population that has endured systematic persecution under the Islamic Republic since its establishment in 1979.

Multiple intelligence reports indicate that following the outbreak of hostilities on February 28, 2026, the CIA has actively explored arming Kurdish opposition groups to foment internal uprising against Iranian leadership. This strategic consideration has been reinforced by high-level diplomatic engagements, including President Donald Trump’s direct communications with Iraqi Kurdish leaders Masoud Barzani and Bafel Talabani shortly after the initiation of bombing campaigns.

The geopolitical calculus appears influenced by Israel’s sustained advocacy for U.S.-Kurdish cooperation, leveraging existing intelligence networks among Kurdish populations across Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Kurdish grievances against Tehran’s authorities, intensified by recent events including the 2022 protests following Mahsa Amini’s death and decades of cultural suppression, create apparent conditions for productive collaboration.

However, Middle East analysts caution that this approach carries significant risks reminiscent of previous Western interventions. The Kurdish people, numbering 30-40 million across four nations, represent history’s largest stateless ethnic group despite early 20th century promises of sovereignty. Their political movements remain fragmented across ideological and national lines, complicating unified action.

Ethical considerations loom large, as Kurdish communities possess painful historical memories of abandonment by Western powers. The 1975 Algiers Accord, which terminated U.S. support for Iraqi Kurdish rebels without warning, resulted in devastating reprisals and mass displacements. Current Kurdish leadership expresses skepticism about American commitment beyond immediate tactical objectives.

Regional complications further complicate potential cooperation. Turkey, a NATO ally, considers Kurdish militant groups like the PKK and its Iranian affiliate PJAK as existential threats. Any substantial American arming of these elements would strain relations with Ankara, particularly following delicate ceasefire developments in 2025.

Military analysts question the practical effectiveness of Kurdish insurgent capabilities, noting assessments that indicate limited capacity for sustaining successful uprising against Iranian forces. The humanitarian implications also raise concerns, as historical patterns suggest Tehran would respond with indiscriminate repression against civilian populations in Kurdish regions.

The emerging strategy reflects concerning parallels with previous American interventions in Afghanistan and Syria, where short-term tactical advantages yielded long-term destabilizing consequences. Without clear political objectives and sustainable support structures, analysts warn that leveraging Kurdish aspirations against Iran may initiate another cycle of betrayal and regional instability.

In a pivotal diplomatic engagement, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and former U.S. President Donald Trump convened a telephone discussion on Sunday, aiming to reconcile recent disagreements concerning the ongoing military engagement in the Middle East. The conversation, detailed in an official summary from Downing Street, served as a platform to address the United Kingdom’s contentious involvement in the US-Israeli operations against Iran.

During the exchange, Prime Minister Starmer formally expressed his condolences for the American personnel who lost their lives in Iranian counter-strikes on U.S. installations throughout the Gulf region. The leaders also deliberated on the broader Middle Eastern situation and the specifics of UK-US military collaboration, particularly focusing on the strategic utilization of Royal Air Force (RAF) bases for collective defense initiatives with regional allies.

This high-stakes dialogue followed a period of significant friction. Initially, Prime Minister Starmer had moved to deny U.S. forces access to the critical British airbase located on Diego Garcia, a strategic Indian Ocean outpost, shortly after the commencement of bombardments on February 28th. This decision prompted a fierce backlash from Trump and pro-war factions within the UK’s political landscape, including members of the Conservative and Reform parties.

Under mounting pressure, the Starmer administration later revised its stance, permitting U.S. military operations from UK bases for what it classified strictly as ‘defensive’ purposes, such as neutralizing Iranian missile sites that had targeted American assets. This concession, however, did not prevent a public relations broadside from Trump, who took to his Truth Social platform on Saturday to dismiss reported British considerations of deploying aircraft carriers as belated and unnecessary, sarcastically remarking, ‘We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!’ He had previously drawn an unflattering comparison on March 3rd, stating he was ‘not happy with the UK’ and quipping, ‘This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with.’

The conflict itself has proven far more protracted and costly than initial U.S. assessments predicted. Originally anticipated to conclude within days, Pentagon officials now reportedly project operations could extend until at least September. The U.S. has acknowledged eight military fatalities and significant damage to its infrastructure across the Gulf due to Iranian retaliation. Iran’s tactical approach has emphasized inflicting substantial geopolitical, economic, and infrastructural costs on the U.S.

In response, US and Israeli military efforts have concentrated on degrading Iran’s civilian and military infrastructure, aiming to cripple its missile capabilities and instigate internal dissent against the Tehran government. To date, these efforts have not sparked a widespread uprising, but the human cost is severe, with at least 1,300 Iranian casualties reported from the attacks. For Prime Minister Starmer, a former critic of the Iraq War, navigating this military entanglement without direct UK combat involvement remains a central and challenging objective of his foreign policy.