COLUMN: Iran defies Trump, civilians are fleeing, and no one is in control anymore

The Soufan Center’s Analysis

The Soufan Center, a specialized institute based in New York whose analyses are closely followed by Western intelligence agencies, has published an assessment that should keep every decision-maker at the Pentagon and Matignon awake at night. Their assessment boils down to one devastating sentence: the assassinations of senior officials have sidelined Iran’s political leadership and placed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps at the center of the action. In other words, by seeking to decapitate the regime, Washington and Tel Aviv have eliminated the pragmatists and handed the reins to the ideologues.

The miscalculation that no one is correcting

It is a strategic paradox of rare intellectual intensity. Every surgical strike against a moderate commander strengthens the radicals’ hand. Every targeted elimination bolsters those who want no agreement at all. The Soufan Center explicitly speaks of the risk of a major miscalculation by the United States. And yet, the machine keeps rolling. Bombs are falling. The moderates are dying. And the Guardians, for their part, are still standing.

The Online Store That Is No Longer in Business

Golnar is 29 years old. She used to make a living from her online store in Tehran. The word “used to” is in the past tense because, for the past month, nights in the Iranian capital have been short, punctuated by airstrikes and plagued by anxiety. Her words, as reported by correspondents on the ground, are devastating in their simplicity: “I have absolutely no income left. We can only afford the most basic necessities.” No pathos. No grand statements. Just a 29-year-old woman who was counting her online earnings five weeks ago and is now counting her last rations.

The artist who knows what lies ahead

Kaveh is 38 years old. He is an artist. And he knows that the war won’t end when the bombs stop falling. Groups linked to the security forces have taken control of the streets, he explains. His clarity is chilling: “If an agreement is reached between Washington and the Islamic Republic, we’ll be doomed. At the very least, we’ll have to leave Iran for two or three years, because they’ll turn on us.” War produces two kinds of victims: those killed by bombs and those condemned by peace.

Cultural Heritage as a Target

At least 120 museums and historic buildings were directly targeted and sustained severe structural damage. The figure comes from Iran’s Ministry of Cultural Heritage. One hundred twenty places of historical significance. In one month. Iran is home to some of humanity’s oldest archaeological sites—Persepolis, Isfahan, Pasargadae—treasures listed as UNESCO World Heritage Sites. When a museum is bombed, it’s not just a building that’s destroyed. A chapter of human history is erased.

What bombs don’t understand

There is a particular obscenity in seeing a 5,000-year-old civilization pulverized by GPS-guided munitions. Targeting algorithms cannot distinguish between a missile depot and a collection of 16th-century Persian miniatures. And yet, that distinction is everything. Because a people without memory is a people that can be rewritten. And that is exactly what every bomb dropped on a museum does: it does not destroy Iran’s past—it paves the way for a controlled future.

On March 2, everything changed

Lebanon did not choose this war. It was dragged into it on March 2 by Hezbollah’s retaliation for the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Since then, southern Beirut—which Israel considers a stronghold of the pro-Iranian movement—has been subjected to daily strikes. Explosions echo through the southern suburbs. Smoke rises above the buildings. AFP footage shows what military statements do not: entire neighborhoods emptied of their residents.

The Numbers Behind the Exodus

More than 1,100 dead. More than one million displaced. In one month. Lebanon, a country of 5.5 million people that had not yet fully recovered from the 2019 economic crisis, the 2020 Beirut port explosion, and the banking collapse that ruined its middle class, is now seeing one-fifth of its population flee. And yet, it is the country least mentioned in White House press briefings. Lebanon makes no noise when it dies. It has proven this a thousand times over.

The Internal Divide

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is demonstrating its determination to intensify its military campaign. It has remained silent on recent remarks from Washington. There is no willingness to end the conflict. But for the first time since the war began, the Israeli opposition has spoken out. And its words are unusually harsh by Israeli political standards: fighting without a strategy, without the necessary resources, and with far too few soldiers.

Endless War as a Political Project

The question the opposition is implicitly asking is the one Israel’s allies refuse to voice aloud: What is the ultimate goal? To destroy Iran’s military capabilities? They are rebuilding. To eliminate radical leaders? Their successors are worse. To secure the northern border with Lebanon? A million refugees do not secure anything. Netanyahu is waging a war with no end in sight because that very lack of an end is the only thing keeping his coalition in power. And yet, this reality is absent from every Western briefing.

Rubio Arrives, Germany Takes the Initiative

The G7 has been meeting in Paris since Thursday. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio joined his counterparts on Friday with a clear mission: to convince the Europeans to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The request is cruelly ironic. Washington starts a war that closes the Strait of Hormuz, then asks Europe to pay to reopen it.

The German verdict

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius did not mince words. He condemned Washington’s lack of consultation, lack of a clear objective, and lack of an exit strategy. Three shortcomings. Three fundamental failures in military planning that any first-year student at West Point would learn to avoid. When Germany—Germany, Washington’s steadfast ally since 1949—publicly criticizes U.S. strategy, it is not a diplomatic disagreement. It is an earthquake.

The Postponement as an Admission

A postponed ultimatum is a dead ultimatum. Trump had threatened to destroy Iran’s power plants. Then he pushed the deadline back to April 6. According to him, this was at Iran’s request. But Tehran refuses to acknowledge that any discussions are even taking place. So who is asking what of whom? The answer is simple: Trump is negotiating with his own image. He is postponing an ultimatum that no one takes seriously so that, in three days, he can claim either that he has secured a victory or that Iran has rejected peace.

The Phantom Mediator

There is, however, one element that both sides acknowledge: Pakistan as a mediator. An anonymous source cited by the Tasnim news agency confirms that the Iranians have officially transmitted, via Islamabad, a response to the 15-point U.S. plan. This is the only tangible evidence that a communication channel exists. And it is Pakistan—not the UN, not the European Union, not China—that maintains this channel. In the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, this detail is more revealing than ten speeches at the General Assembly.

The Shekarchi Doctrine

Iranian Armed Forces spokesman Abolfazl Shekarchi made a statement that redefines the rules of engagement in the region: “When American soldiers enter a hotel, it becomes American.” Behind this statement lies a doctrine. Any location housing an American soldier becomes a legitimate target in Tehran’s eyes. This is no longer a war between armies. It is a war between presences.

The consequences for civilians in the region

Think about what this means in practical terms. A hotel in Kuwait that hosts three American officers in transit becomes, according to this doctrine, a military target. Tourists, businesspeople, service staff—all become acceptable collateral damage in the logic of the Revolutionary Guards. This is exactly the tactic the Revolutionary Guards accuse Washington of using: using civilians as human shields. And yet, this is exactly what they themselves are doing by threatening civilian infrastructure. War turns each side into a mirror image of the other.

Reversed Rhetoric

The Guardians accuse the “cowardly American-Israeli forces” of using civilian sites and innocent people as human shields. This accusation, historically leveled by Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah, has been turned right back on them. The vocabulary of war is a battlefield in itself. Each side uses the same words to describe the enemy because these words work. They stir up outrage. They justify escalation.

What No One Is Saying

And yet, the reality is simpler and more terrible than the rhetoric from either side. Civilians are dying on both sides. Golnar can no longer sell online. Kaveh is preparing to flee. A million Lebanese have fled their homes. Kuwaitis are watching their ports get bombed by drones. And in every Western capital, analysts in suits discuss “calibrated de-escalation” while sipping coffee. The distance between the word “calibrated” and the body of a civilian under the rubble is exactly the distance between those who wage war and those who suffer it.

What the Markets Are Seeing

One month of conflict. The oil markets are in overdrive. Brent crude has surpassed levels traders haven’t seen since the 2008 crisis. Every strike on Iranian infrastructure, every ship diverted in the Strait of Hormuz, every drone that crashes into a Kuwaiti port sends shockwaves through trading floors in London, Singapore, and New York. Oil is not collateral damage in this war. It is its central nervous system.

The bill is coming your way

When the Strait of Hormuz is closed, it’s not a geopolitical abstraction. It’s the price at the pump rising in Montreal. It’s the heating bill skyrocketing in Paris. It’s the cost of freight being passed on to every imported product in every supermarket in every Western city. The war in the Middle East is never far away. It hits your wallet before it hits your news feed.

The Question No One Is Asking

How will this end? It’s the most fundamental question of any military operation. And it’s the one that neither Washington nor Tel Aviv is answering. German Minister Pistorius has asked it publicly. The Israeli opposition whispers it. Analysts at the Soufan Center put it in black and white. But in the corridors of the Pentagon and the Israeli prime minister’s office, the question remains unanswered. Because the answer—there is no exit strategy—is too embarrassing to admit.

The precedent that haunts

Iraq. Afghanistan. Libya. Each time, the same sequence: a dramatic entry, massive destruction, an uncertain occupation, a chaotic withdrawal, and lasting chaos. Each time, the same words—“mission accomplished,” “turning point,” “light at the end of the tunnel.” And each time, the same reality: decades of destabilization and generations sacrificed. Iran is the fourth chapter of the same book. And no one has read the first three.

The Cold Hard Numbers

February 28—March 28, 2025. One month. Here is what this war has produced: more than 1,100 deaths in Lebanon. A number of Iranian casualties that Tehran has not disclosed and that NGOs are struggling to verify. 120 museums destroyed. One million displaced Lebanese. The Strait of Hormuz closed. Strikes on five countries—Iran, Lebanon, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Bahrain. The Revolutionary Guards more powerful than ever. And a U.S. president who insists that everything is going “very well.”

What the statistics don’t show

The numbers don’t convey the terror of sleepless nights in Tehran. They don’t convey the taste of dust in Golnar’s mouth when she steps out of her home in the morning. They don’t convey the cold rage of Kaveh, who knows that peace will be worse for him than war. They don’t convey the bewilderment of a Kuwaiti fisherman whose port was struck by a drone at dawn, in a country that isn’t even at war. The numbers count the dead. They don’t count the living who have stopped living.

The Scenario No One Wants to Write

On April 6, Trump’s ultimatum expires. Three scenarios. Scenario One: Trump declares victory based on a phantom agreement and scales back the strikes. Netanyahu continues on his own. Chaos persists. Second scenario: No deal; Iranian power plants are struck; 85 million Iranians are left without electricity; and the Revolutionary Guards launch a full-scale retaliation across the entire Gulf. Third scenario: A real agreement, brokered by Pakistan, imposes a partial ceasefire. The Revolutionary Guards view this agreement as a betrayal and seize complete power in Iran.

The only hope is also the most fragile

The 15-point plan relayed via Islamabad is the only lifeline preventing a free fall. No one knows its contents. No one knows if Washington is taking it seriously. No one knows whether the Guardians will accept anything short of the opponent’s total surrender. But that lifeline exists. And in a war where every certainty crumbles within hours, the existence of a channel—however fragile, however opaque, however managed by an unlikely mediator—is the only thing standing between escalation and catastrophe.

Wars never end when the powerful decide they should. They end when the people can’t take it anymore. Golnar, Kaveh, a million Lebanese, and millions of Iranians can’t take it anymore. The question isn’t whether this war will end. The question is how many more Golnars it will take before someone, somewhere, decides that enough is enough.

Signed, Jacques PJ Provost