By Thomas Neuburger. Originally published at God’s Spies
“Kurilla is especially close to Israel, even by the standards of other American officials”
—Huffington Post
Who’s In Charge?
Who’s really in charge of all these wars, the U.S. or Israel? Which is the client state and which the master? The question comes up, not because it’s being asked, but because the answer is assumed and no one can agree.
Many assert that the tail (Israel or Netanyahu) is wagging the dog. Jeffrey Sachs is one of many with this opinion. Others, like Michael Hudson, believe that we are the boss and Israel is our “landed aircraft carrier” in the Near East.
Certainly these countries, ours and Israel, have been intertwined since that nation was created in Palestine. Joe Biden is not alone in the halls of power when he said this:
I want to look at this question — who’s really in charge? — by looking at the larger context: Why are we fighting these wars? Yes, empire (a word those in power have started to use). But that’s vague. What does this empire want, and how does it mean to get it?
These answers will take us back, ultimately, to the start of America’s Great Game, the one the U.S. began when it joined the rest of the West in chasing colonies and world domination, a game that started before Columbus set sail. (For more on this, see our still-incomplete series on Alfred McCoy’s To Govern the Globe. The intro is here. The rest of the pieces are here.)
But those are background ideas on how we got here. We’ll cover them in due course. How are we affected today? Is Israel a pawn in America’s Great Game of control? Or has Israel so captured the centers of DC power that we’re serving its needs even as we ignore our own?
I’m going to take this on in three separate chunks. This is the first. It won’t answer our question alone, but it features a central player, General Michael “Erik” Kurilla, current commander of CENTCOM, the Pentagon’s Central Command, responsible for the area shown in the map above. CENTCOM and Gen. Kurilla are linchpin players, as you’ll see.
The second piece will detail the grand strategy as it’s evolved today and show why Iran is the focus of all this attention. The third will look at Iran from inside the country, the problems it faces, the challenges it must overcome.
So let’s start, with General Kurilla.
Kurilla’s Focus on Israel and Iran
General Michael Kurilla, CENTCOM commander, is widely considered essential to Israel’s plan to attack Iran.
For those who don’t know, Saagar Enjeti (above) is well connected in right-wing circles, having come through the Tucker Carlson right-wing media channels. He’s strongly opposed to the war.
There’s quite a bit more on Kurilla from the still-running Huffington Post:
The Pro-Israel U.S. General Quietly Influencing Trump On Iran
Gen. Erik Kurilla “had better information about what [Israel was] up to … than anyone else in our government,” a former U.S. official told HuffPost.
…The choice to participate in a war against Iran still rests with Trump, but the military build-up suggests the increased influence of the member of his national security team who may be most supportive of an Israeli-American operation against Iran: Michael “Erik” Kurilla, the U.S. military commander for operations in the Middle East.
People familiar with Kurilla told HuffPost he is especially close to Israel, even by the standards of other American officials who have worked with the longtime U.S. partner. That proximity has largely been to Israeli military and intelligence officials who have long treated Iran as an incontrovertible neighborhood threat — while the U.S., further away and with its own interests, has attempted diplomacy with Tehran.
“He had better information about what they were up to and what they were seeing in their intelligence before we got it than anyone else in our government,” said a former U.S. official, who requested anonymity to speak frankly.
Things to note from this article:
- “Based on my experience with [Kurilla] … he takes a fundamentally different view of the importance of the Middle East than a lot of other people”, says Dan Caldwell, a former Trump Pentagon appointee.
- Kurilla “repeatedly visited Israel to coordinate U.S. cooperation in its brutal subsequent military operations in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon”.
- He has “clashed with political appointees at the Pentagon who have sought to redirect the military’s attention to Asia.”
- He sees “Israel’s pummeling of its enemies” as a “model for U.S. military choices.”
This leads us to one of two conclusions, perhaps both of them. The first: Kurilla is an Israel hawk plain and simple, a Zionist through and through.
But the second, more interesting for our purposes, has to do with his views on the Middle East. Some in the Trump administration see China as our next big challenge — as Obama did, by the way — and they don’t want to get bogged down militarily in the Middle East. Too much effort, too far away. We’d be stretched way too thin.
But there’s an argument that Iran, with or without intending to be, is the pivotal country in America’s Great Game: You have to go through Iran (and Pakistan) first, to get at Russia and China. So deal with Iran now, goes the argument; don’t jump the gun. You’ll see that argument in the next piece.
Is Kurilla of this mind too? It’s possible, though maybe not likely. The Huff Post notes that “commanders like Kurilla have expertise in battlefield wins but not in long-term strategy”.
Still, whatever the reason he supports Israel’s attack, he may be strategically right from a hegemonic point of view. In order to execute the long-sought “pivot to Asia,” if that’s what you want, Iran may really be the first domino in line, and skipping it could be a mistake.
More in the next piece.
So much history must be known to understand a region far abroad. Big money has brought forward a coalition of the ignorant. In USian effect.
Alice X. Absolutely. In fact, I have the DJG Axiom: Any writing from the Anglosphere about the Mediterranean basin, and in particular, Italy, is almost always wrong. Which doesn’t apply to Tom Neuberger’s piece so much as to the lies, bullshit, and propaganda that are the base of U.S. imperial designs.
These people don’t know Beirut. They don’t know Istanbul. And what is even more embarrassing, given that Italian history is the basis of much Western history, they don’t know a damn thing about Italy. You could send them to Sicily and they wouldn’t be able to find the cannoli.
And there’s this: “But the second, more interesting for our purposes, has to do with his views on the Middle East. Some in the Trump administration see China as our next big challenge — as Obama did, by the way — and they don’t want to get bogged down militarily in the Middle East.”
They don’t know Yemen from Yellowstone, and they want to take on China. All that the Western elites know is their craving for power and their craven bowing to those in power.
Do the western elite even know the US outside the Acela Corridor? Perhaps as well as Louis XVI….
Col.Jaques Baud repeatedly emphasizes that “we” do not know the enemy which is necessary to “win” in war.
Sometimes I think winning isn’t necessarily the object as long as the war fills the right rice bowls
Iran is the weakest link in the China-Russia-Iran alliance. Defeating Iran would thwart China’s Belt and Road Initiative and dissuade other countries from forming military alliances with Russia. This would inevitably diminish the international standing of both Russia and China.
Not pushing a genuinely reluctant Iran into the arms of Russia and China with seventy years of US hostility to Iran’s existence as anything more than a vassal state might be worth a try. Just saying.
‘You have to go through Iran (and Pakistan) first, to get at Russia and China’
What’s the point? No, seriously. What is the point about going on a whistle stop tour of those other countries so that by the time you get to Russia and China, you only have left a sling shot and your a** is hanging out the rear. And may I point out that taking down Iran and Pakistan are not actually American aims but Israeli aims? So who is doing the dirty work now?
If one wishes to control the entire globe (full spectrum dominance, globally) one must neuter Iran and Pakistan. Where India fits into this Great Game is not clear to me. India has good relations with Israel, so that is beneficial to the US grand strategy. India won’t be throwing up any roadblocks and may even help neuter Iran and Pakistan.
India may be an ally to Israel but the US will never tolerate a country or group of countries that can compete against it economically. Look at what happened to the EU and how it was done. China is in their gun-sights as they are out-competing the US and you can be sure that India will be on the menu sooner or later because of their growth as an economic power. A hegemon will tolerate vassals but despises allies and especially peers.
If by, “China is in their gun-sights” you mean war, I have to disagree. The US China policy, or pivot to East Asia, is ‘containment’ which means you want to avoid war at all costs. Meanwhile, you search for ways to interfere, slow down, or even reverse China’s economic growth.
Then the US is destined to fail. Both in India and China. There is an arrogance in the assumption that Pax Americana can be sustained through the 21stC that, inevitably, will be disappointed, just as 19thC UK dominance has been eroded.
China has many resource shortfalls, including water resources and, proportionately, its arable area, but has sourced its industrial raw materials long term, moreorless independently of US hegemony.
It controls the current rare earth market, which just happens to be essential for hi-tech weaponry and civilian uses in the short term.
It controls the PV market, also leading in EVs and other tech. Its accelerated growth in R&D has been phenomenal, though still second to the US. It will be much better placed than the US in terms of renewables within 20 years or so, as its coal dependence declines.
It’s internal transport infrastructure, such as rail, is increasingly advanced with new links into the less developed Western provinces.
It accounts for about 8% of US exports but 17% of US imports, hardly a controlling trade position for the USA.
Then the Asian elephant in the room is accelerating climate change.
China still has about 45% rural population, so, seemingly paradoxically, would probably be more able to respond rapidly to a climate induced economic crisis or collapse in the next 20-30 years, as lower levels of development are an advantage when the city lights go out and/if consumer markets collapse.
An 80% employment profile in services is not necessarily a positive in this situation, but a strong base of small subsistence farmers is more resilient.
Influencers can accompany the oligarchs on the Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B.
China does remain pretty vulnerable to flooding despite its big river projects with climate change, but then so is North America under prepared for increasingly extreme weather events, and increasing water deficits in densely populated areas with Mediterranean climates like California.
China has a long established political and societal system – the CCP in the 21stC is basically a continuation of Confucianism, which involves strong family units, and which has endured for several thousand years. This system involves an inculcated loyalty to the state which would suggest national stability in any climate induced crisis.
It already has an internal economy mostly independent of the dollar and it has its own means of international exchange with the 85% of its trade that is not with the USA, plus it still has substantial, though diminishing, holdings of US debt. The Chinese have been deliberately trying to reduce dependence on the dollar for some time: they are not stupid.
All in all, I wouldn’t be betting on the USA maintaining a hegemonic global leadership position over the next 50 years, even if it retains its current commitment to an aerial power based rather than a rules based international order.
Thank you and well said.
The British government has been told this since 2010, usually by the storied firms with ties to China, going back to the 19th century. Back in 2010, I sat in a room with Cameron, Osborne and Clarke as the CEOs of HSBC and Standard Chartered explained what you have written. The last time was in November 2024.
Many, if not most, British politicians, officials and top brass are not interested in learning.
Soon after entering No 10, Blair was briefed about the hand over of Hong Kong, due in two months. He confessed to not knowing about the opium trade and how Hong Kong became British and asked why China can’t get over such things.
Wow.
I’ll bet Blair did not know about the Boxer rebellion either.
Group think is still evident everywhere in the praetorian guards surrounding world “leaders”.
Thank you TiPi. In a nutshell. I cannot wrap my head around the profound ignorance of what to me is common knowledge. No wonder our politicians blunder. All one need do is look, listen and read. Travel is a bonus for most of us.
Or look at it this way: If everywhere that Russia and China turn, the USA and associates are pulling strings and calling the shots, what are the possibilities?
I really wish people who write or say things like this would learn to read maps (not you Rev,, the original quote).
Iran is separated from Russia by a vast area of open desert, and at least one country depending on which way you try to go. Iran and Pakistan are separated from China by the highest and most inaccessible plateau on the planet. There is a reason the major railway and road links between Europe and China went via the northern plains (i.e. the various routes for the Trans-Siberian Railway).
The Silk Roads connected Iran and China (with great difficulty), because camels could allow connections between the small number of high altitude passes. The single railway that is now being upgraded and connected between Iran and China has minimal value as a transcontinental link – it is connecting localised nodes. It has actually existing for the most part for many decades – its the interconnection which is new – its been promoted for political reasons as it has little commercial or military utility.
Iran isn’t a ‘route’ to anywhere. It is strategically important because its the most populous country in the wider region (west of the Indian sub-continent) and historically a regional hegemon. Any global hegemon either needs to get it onside, or failing that, promote one or more local powers to provide a favourable regional balance.
When i read the article I instantly thought in very similar terms. This is an excellent answer to Neuburger’s questions on supposed geostrategic interests in Iran as a “pivotal” country. Iran can indeed be pivotal but not in the sense suggested in the article. Instead, because a failure to impose US government wishes in Iran would be seen as a second sign of weakness after Ukraine, a more damning one because Iran is not precisely Russia. For the sake of appearances it might not be wise to risk military reputation (and weapons stocks) in a region which is not as important for US interests as other regions.
Yes, people are overcomplicating this. Iran/Persia is important because its big, populous and central within the region – it has been for millennia. But it has always had a geographical identity for physical, not linguistic/cultural reasons. It is surrounded on two sides by water, and two others by deserts and almost impenetrable mountains.
In geopolitical terms, any power with ambitions in the region must deal with Iran/Persia in whatever form it make take. You either make it an ally, or if you fail to do that for whatever reasons you must rally sufficient neighbours to form a counterbalancing force. This has been going on for centuries – if its not the US, before that the British, Russians (the British and Soviets allied to invade neutral Persia in 1941), Ottomans, etc. Neither Russia nor China were particularly bothered to come to Irans rescue last week because they have their own particular interests and alliances in the region.
China-Iran Railroad just opened.
https://wentworthreport.com/2025/06/17/china-iran-railroad-just-opened/
“On May 25, 2025, the first freight train from Xi’an, China, arrived at the Aprin dry port, Iran, marking the official launch of a direct rail link between the two countries. This new logistical artery significantly reduces transit times (from 30–40 days by sea to roughly 15 days by land) yielding a direct impact on transportation costs.”
Russia is just a hope fromIran by the Caspian Sea and it is easier to mitigate that route (for commerce) than a desert and additional countries.
But I think the point is here not necessarily getting at China or Russia via Iran or Pakistan, but strangulating them slowly like an anaconda, avoiding direct war, which would imperil their own existence…
The fabled salami tactics…
Summing it up, the settler state’s strategy since 1967, when Johnson gave them free rein, has been to achieve it’s aims by piggybacking on American power by using the money Congress kindly sends to them by spending it on American arms, ensuring political support from the MIC, and by helping fund and promotes those Senatorial and Congressional candidates who are more than happy to vote funds to the settler colonists, and it doesn’t really matter to them what other aims the US may have as long as they can control the Mid East and the Stans. The settler colonists have set no limitations in their land grabs and will settle for nothing less than becoming the dominant imperial power using the same approach as the British used to become an imperial power by suborning locals to keep order on their behalf.
The parallels between Israeli expansion and aggression to that of United States expansion and aggression are striking. Both have employed terror, invasions, continuous war, and genocide to achieve their geopolitical objectives. Both are settler colonial nations as well. So in a very real sense Israel is a Mini Me of the United Sates. That may be be a major reason why it enjoys widespread political support in the United States. And oh by the way, racism and white supremacy play a big role in both nations domestic and foreign policies.
To me the answer is straightforward: Israel needs a land for Jews. America needs a sense of control over Middle east for the energy independence this provides. Their assumptions may be wrong but this is how each country sees it. The Christian right’s interest in Israel or constant war are merely symptoms.
And some people need a billion dollars. We’re a needy species.
One can wonder how much a sense of control over the Middle East the USA has after the recent 20+ years of military and political actions.
With the USA spending 8+ trillion dollars in Afghanistan/Iraq, one can argue there is little evidence Middle East “control” was achieved for the spend.
Maybe chaos is the real goal?
I always thought it was the reverse on the grounds of nationalist exceptionalism so common to the mental sewers of the late 1800s and early 1900s: the Jews needed a land, any land, to be their national territory to enable them to achieve statehood.
According to international law religious “states” are illegal, so Israel being self-described as a “Jewish State” indicates that Israel is illegal under international law. The UN may recognize Israel as a state, but it can’t recognize it as a Jewish state. Therein lies the problem as the Zionist founders of Israel envisioned it as a state for Jewish people only. Arabs live in Israel and many are citizens of Israel, but they are treated as second class citizens simply because they aren’t Jewish. Essentially apartheid.
There is always the Autonomous Jewish oblast in Russia.
But that would defeat the purpose of weaponizing a religion for a settler colonial project
This rhymes with themes 1 and 3 of the three themes that Brian Berlectic has been reprising in his The New Atlas commentaries in recent months: “Continuity of Agenda” (US under Trump is pursuing the same things it did under his predecessors), “Division of Labor” (offloading the Ukraine problem to Europe) and “Strategic Sequencing” (taking on the big adversaries one at a time).
This has been going on my entire life. I feel somewhat foolish to have not realized it decades ago.
Is this general an end-times evangelical? I’ll bet he is.
These folks want Israel to build the next temple and have a nuclear war with someone, called Magog from the north in scripture, near Megiddo to bring about the rapture. Many of these folks, who have infested the military and (not exclusively) the GOP since Reagan, think Magog is Russia.
The world could really benefit from an outbreak of Preterism among US Evangelicals. Futurist eschatology may be the end of us all.
The Romans conquered their immediate neighbors because they were a threat or so twas thought, but that produced new neighbors who were seen as a threat. What to do? Conquer them. Rinse and repeat until all the lands about the sea were in the empire. Safety? Security? Perpetual peace or new enemies here and there now and again. Is Israel’s situation all that different? The more or less empty desert borders are less threatening but to the north Lebanon, Syria … second coming of the Hittites. To the east Jordan, Iraq …. Assyrians, Medes, Persians Parthians.You cannot conquer you way to security and especially so when you have not the means to do so and depend on another.
The most expansive dream of Greater Israel has outer borders however vague. Each step outward only stiffens the resistance.
The problem for Trump is that by aligning with Netanyahu the perception becomes that Trump, like Biden, is the handmaiden and lapdog of Netanyahu. The underlying foundation of US foreign policy seems to be’full spectrum dominance’ regardless who is POTUS. Exactly how this achieved in the ‘game of risk’ is often up to debate; e.g. to contain China, dismember Russia or to weaken China, dismember Iran There is no notion of ‘co-operation’ in the US version of ‘game theory’, thus Plan A or failure. The US Executive Branch might be compared to the Inca or Aztec Empires, co-opt the leader like Pizzaro and Cortes did, and rule the Empire.
In the 20th Century, the British were the influencers. In the first quarter of the 21st, the Israelis. Who next? The technocrats. At the moment, it seems like the US lacks strategic depth in terms of manpower and industry. Trump is the perfect represenative; a lot of bluster but lacking in substance. One interesting question: Did Trump just save Israel temporarily from total self destruction? If so, Netanyahu’s tenure has to be in immediate jeopardy.