Evaluating Impacts of the War with Iran
The Iran Conflict at Week Six: Beyond Failed Diplomacy and the Case for Strategic Balkanization
Executive Summary Statement
This memo analyzes the limitations of current military outcomes, proposes a transition toward covert support for a “Balkanized” Iran to disrupt regional threats, critiques the domestic political calculations of Western liberal governments, and advocates for the Board of Peace as a technocratic vehicle for long-term regional stability.
I am amazed by lack of objectivity of war commentators with critics not that concerned with the pre-war status quo and proponents arguing the war is a great success. The actual situation and the potential path forward is far more complicated. Truth is there are and never were great diplomatic options and a quick settlement to this war would create an even more precarious situation.
The war did not lead to regime change because regime change is difficult and there was no support for resistance groups. Going forward, the CIA and Mossad should work with resistance groups in Iran. This effort is not likely to lead to complete regime change but could lead to the Balkanization of Iran, a risky outcome which is probably better than the current situation.
Liberal governments in France and other western nations are more concerned about maintaining a domestic political coalition than the actual facts in the Mideast. The United States has to work closely with Israel on ways to contain violence in Gaza and Lebanon at lower collateral damage to civilians. (This can be done with drone technology.) I am hopeful the newly established Board of Peace can facilitate needed dialogue between Israel and Muslim nations through its business-led, technocratic framework.
Status of the war in week six:
· The Iranian military has been significantly degraded.
· The ability to assemble a nuclear weapon has likely been delayed but Iran still has the plutonium which it could hand off to a terror group.
· Regime change seems highly unlikely, and the regime will continue to hang and massacre its own citizens
· The Gulf of Hormuz is closed, and the world economy will likely shrink
· Most nations are applying pressure to end the war quickly to open the straits.
· The agreement would allow Iran to continue funding Hezbollah and proxy groups in Iran.
· Israel is being pressured to enter a cease fire which would allow Hezbollah and other terror groups to rearm and again attack Israel.
So, what could have been done differently and, more importantly, going forward how do we proceed.
Comments:
Comment One: The pre-war status quo was not an option. Can’t expect a regime that kills 40,000 of its own citizens in a couple of weekends to not massacre foreigners. Diplomacy had run its course.
Comment Two: A clean regime change did not happen because there was no support for resistance groups like Arab separatists, Kurds and protestors in Tehran and other cities.
Comment Three: It appears likely that the Trump administration will seek a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. This would involve monitoring nuclear material but potentially offering sanctions relief—funding that Iran will use to rearm, rebuild its military, and fund proxies while continuing to suppress its own citizens. The nuclear monitoring might not prevent Iran from giving nuclear material to proxy groups and allow them to build a nuclear device.
Israel is being pressured to allow for a ceasefire that would allow Hezbollah to rearm in southern Israel. This puts Israel in a difficult position because Hezbollah attacks after October 7 resulted in the near complete evacuation of northern Israel.
This approach could lead to a complete loss of American credibility with Arab allies in the Gulf (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE) who have also been bombed by Iran and expected the U.S. to “finish the job.”
Comment Four: Iran is a huge country with many groups. Right now, the IRGC has all the weapons in Iran. A complete regime change is not imminent, but a well-funded (CIA and Mossad) covert resistance effort could lead to a Balkanized and partially-free Iran similar to what now exists in Iraq and Syria. Regardless, Israel may respond to Iranian funding of attacks against Israel with the funding of resistance groups inside Iran.
Comment Five: The Balkanization of Iran is a risky strategy but a friendly government near the strait would open the strait, allow for the seizure of the nuclear material and prevent the creation of a dirty bomb, and there would be a safe zone for Iranian citizens. There would be a lot of violence but that already exists in Iran.
Comment Six: Israel needs to find ways to attack Hezbollah with lower collateral damage to Lebanese civilians. The expansion and deployment of drone technology, with American assistance, could serve as a “carrot” to incentivize Israel to alter its current tactical approach in Lebanon. Of course, this approach requires continued close ties between Israel and the United States.
Comment Seven: The war has intensified a trend in France, Britain, Canada, and Australia where liberal governments distance themselves from Israel because to maintain shaky domestic political coalitions. The trend is also evident in the Democratic party in the United States where politicians increasingly cater to the “progressive” base.
Israel must pivot and build support in nations that understand its position, such as Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, Germany, Ukraine, India, and Argentina. It must also invest heavily in its own arms industry to brace for the potential success of BDS movements in Western nations.
Comment Eight: Israel should remain open to international groups including the Board of Peace taking the lead in Gaza and Lebanon, provided the West agrees to play a larger role in directly taking on Hamas and Hezbollah. The advantage of the Board of Peace approach is that it leads to dialogue between Israeli and Arab businesspeople technicians and officials domiciled in nations that do not recognize the state of Israel. In my view membership in the Board should be expanded to include members of the Palestinian Authority but not Hezbollah, Hamas or the current government of Iran. The Board, which has been denigrated by liberal critics, is a backdoor to dialogue and eventual peace.
Concluding Thoughts: I am amazed that observers on both sides of this conflict are incapable of analyzing the mixed outcomes. The war has not been a success on any measure but the situation prior to the war was much worse than the political left realizes. Continued diplomacy was not an option, and covert activities would have worked better than open war. The view from France and many other countries in the West -- that Israel should be a passive participant in a ceasefire while Hezbollah rebuilds – is disturbing. Israel, with the help of the U.S. and Lebanon, can do a better job protecting the Lebanese people. Israel is in a precarious position, and the global left may not like the outcomes of their attempts to isolate the state.
Authors Note: www.economicmemos.com is a blog about policy, personal finance and finance. I greatly appreciated when readers take out either the free subscription or the paid one, the choice is entirely yours and my goal is to keep most material free of charge.
The personal finance section of the blog consistently points to many of the issues impacting household finances which are often not the primary focus of financial advisors. The policy portion of the blog recommends approaches to health care, student debt, and savings incentives which differ from those offered by the two major political parties.
This coupon gives you 20 percent off and the right to renew at $48 as long as you maintain the subscription.
· Subscribe now to lock in 20% off—just $48 per year.
· Early supporters secure a discounted annual rate that continues at renewal.
· This limited-time offer allows founding subscribers to keep the reduced price as long as their subscription remains active.
#BoardOfPeace #IranConflict2026 #GeopoliticalRisk #StrategicBalkanization #EnergySecurity