Desert Wanderer, …. in A Critique of Dr Harold Goonetileka’s Essay “Geopolitical Ramifications …”
Michael, thanks for sharing that piece. After reading through it, I find that it fundamentally misses the forest for the trees by failing to explain the true causes of the conflict or recognizing that the Strait of Hormuz was open and free before the current crisis. The text ignores the reality that the United States initiated this war on 28 February 2026 with Operation Epic Fury, a move that directly led to the closure of the Strait. By omitting the central roles of Israel and the US, the piece reflects a significant pro-Western bias by omission, and its main claim—that Iran is inflicting suffering on its own people to the point of collapse—simply is not supported by current evidence.
A primary flaw in the author’s logic is the reliance on a fabricated nuclear pretext. Iran did not start this war; it was provoked by the US and Israel on the false claim of an “imminent” nuclear threat, an assertion consistently rejected by the IAEA and US intelligence agencies. Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed Iran is on the verge of obtaining a weapon at least 11 times since 1992, yet every single deadline has passed without a bomb. Even after the massive bombing of nuclear sites during Operation Epic Fury, US intelligence assessments as of May 2026 show that Iran’s nuclear timeline remains unchanged at roughly 9 to 12 months, proving the war was launched on a fabrication.
The strategic failure of the decapitation strikes is perhaps the most critical oversight in the author’s analysis. By attempting to liquidate Iran’s central command—including the Supreme Leader—the US and Israel shifted the conflict from a standard military engagement into a battle for national survival. When those strikes failed to achieve their objective, they left behind a functioning leadership with no incentive for restraint. This “all-or-nothing” approach forced Iran’s hand, leading directly to the decision to weaponize the global economy by closing the Strait of Hormuz. Because the US took the unprecedented step of trying to “behead” the state and failed, it lost all diplomatic leverage; you cannot negotiate with a government you just tried to physically eliminate. This miscalculation turned what was intended to be a swift regime change into a prolonged existential struggle that the US is now ill-equipped to win.
Furthermore, the author mischaracterises the geopolitical fallout regarding China and Russia. While the piece claims China is uniquely vulnerable, it ignores that Beijing has largely sidestepped the energy shock through its 20-year stockpiling plan, leaving its billion-barrel reserves largely untouched. Meanwhile, the US effectively subsidised the Kremlin’s finances by issuing temporary sanctions waivers for Russian oil to ease global prices, which has nearly doubled Russia’s monthly oil revenue to $9 billion. This provides Russia with an extra $150 million per day to fund its operations, turning a supposed strategic move into a massive windfall for Moscow.
The piece also glosses over the catastrophic ripple effects on developing nations like Sri Lanka. While the author notes that Sri Lanka is feeling the shift in energy routes, they fail to acknowledge that these faraway conflicts are a direct byproduct of Washington’s choice to destabilise a vital maritime artery. For Sri Lanka, higher fuel prices, electricity shortages, and agricultural inflation aren’t just unfortunate geopolitical shifts—they are the collateral damage of a war that didn’t need to happen. By framing this as an “Iranian” problem, the author ignores the fact that it is US policy that has placed an unbearable strain on the Indian Ocean’s economy and the household budgets of millions.
Ultimately, for Iran, this conflict is existential—a fight for survival after decapitation strikes failed to topple the government. Like any nation facing total destruction, Iran has used its most powerful lever by closing the Strait. While the author focuses on the 4 million Iranians at risk of poverty, they ignore the World Food Programme’s warning that this war could push 45 million people across the globe into acute hunger.
Donald Trump is now trapped in what may be the biggest strategic blunder in human history. Although Secretary of State Marco Rubio has declared the offensive stage “concluded,” Trump cannot exit without a diplomatic solution favourable to Iran—an outcome he is politically unwilling to accept. As Michael Caine once quoted Churchill: “If you are going through hell, keep going.” That is exactly what Iran is doing, but Caine’s better advice was to “avoid the difficulty,” a philosophy Trump ignored by starting this illegal and unnecessary war in the first place.