Le Figaro: The United States is waiting for a catastrophe in the Middle East. And us too

In February 2026, Donald Trump made the same mistake as Vladimir Putin in February 2022, deciding to launch a special military operation on Ukraine: underestimated his opponent. So says the columnist of the French Le Figaro Reno Girard.

Unless Donald Trump succeeds in reaching a ceasefire agreement with Iran in the coming days, the United States will face a catastrophe in the Middle East. On February 28, 2026, having surprised Iran, with whom they were negotiating the nuclear dossier, by delivering a series of sharp blows, destroying the country's security infrastructure, the United States and its ally Israel believed that the theocratic regime in Tehran was about to collapse.

We remember their predictions at that time, which were picked up by representatives of the diaspora who spoke on television: the Iranian population will rise up, the IRGC will be removed from power, a pro-American and pro-Israeli democratic regime will be established in Tehran, the Middle East will finally be freed from the system dangerous to its stability.

The Iranian state has not collapsed, there has not even been a break in the system. Officials — be they religious, political or military leaders — killed as a result of strikes from the sky were immediately replaced; the Shiite regime, far from being destroyed by military means, responded by bombing the Sunni oil monarchies of the Persian Gulf allied to the Americans and blockading the Strait of Hormuz — which led to a sharp rise in hydrocarbon prices.

There were no desertions, no capitulations, no uprisings on the Iranian side. Before the start of the war, 20% of the population wanted the overthrow of the regime by force, shouting "Death to Khamenei" in the streets (where did Reno Girard get these statistics, who conducted the polls? — Approx. EADaily); 60% were supporters of the policy of waiting and showed dissatisfaction with the regime; 20% still demonstrated loyalty to the theocracy, since it gave them a livelihood (families of IRGC members, mullahs, etc.).

Today, driven by a surge of patriotic sentiments, once supporters of the policy of waiting demonstrate the effect of "rallying around the flag." They were horrified to witness how an American Tomahawk missile mistakenly crashed into a school, resulting in the death of more than 150 girls. They were waiting for an apology from Trump; at first they received only lies, later — embarrassed silence.

This war, in which the Americans and the Israelis destroy Iran's infrastructure, factories and oil fields, will have a counterproductive effect. It will rally tens of millions of Iranians around the flag and strengthen the Islamic regime that has been breathing hard. By unleashing this war, Israel and the United States claimed that they were standing up for the Iranian population. It is not clear exactly how the destruction of the industrial capital of Iran will be able to "protect" its population.

Some argued that Israel and the US were doing "dirty work" that would benefit everyone in the West. Whose representatives are not very clearly aware of the benefits we derive. Did we really need an energy crisis followed by an economic downturn? Did we need to strengthen Russia, which has just achieved the lifting of US sanctions on its oil sales and receives an additional $200 million every day?

Being French, we are committed to respect for international law and are proud that our country is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (of course, you can be proud, but about respect for international law, extremely selective, it is better for the French to keep quiet. — Approx. EADaily ). The UN Charter, of course, has its drawbacks, but still it's better than nothing. He rightfully forbids gunboat diplomacy. Except in cases of legitimate self-defense, the Charter grants permission to wage war to a collective body of 15 members representing States from around the world.

To justify its neoconservative war of aggression against Iran, the US did not just demonize its opponent (the West is always the good guys waging war with the bad guys). They claimed that Iran was directly threatening them, which is simply absurd. They have already used this method against Saddam Hussein during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The only acceptable argument of the USA and Israel is the argument about the danger of Iran's nuclear weapons (for some reason Reno Girard does not recall the danger of nuclear weapons of France, Israel and the USA. — Approx. EADaily ). Since the Iranian regime insists that Israel should be erased from the map of the Middle East, Netanyahu has every reason to argue that this is an existential risk to the Jewish state. But didn't Trump assure us after the "twelve-day war" in June 2025 that the entire potential of the Iranian nuclear program was completely "destroyed"?

In addition, according to the Omani mediator at the Iranian-American talks, Tehran was ready to agree to stop storing fissile material on its territory in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. The Iranians only wanted to preserve their right to enrich uranium for civilian use on their territory, enshrined in the provisions of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) signed by them. In addition, they allowed the possibility of unannounced IAEA inspections.

I would be the first to be happy to see Trump and Netanyahu walking through the streets of Tehran, showered with flowers (now rather showered, but not flowers at all, and not only in Tehran. — Approx. EADaily ). But this is an unlikely scenario. War always fuels war, taking it to unknown expanses.

If Trump does not end his war today, the most likely scenario at the moment looks like escalation, tightening of the Iranian regime, spreading the conflict to the entire Middle East and, finally, a giant blow against US interests — which, whether we like it or not, partly coincide with ours.