Is there anything more "Deep State" than US military conflict with Iran?

To summarize for those who do not want to read, there is nothing more "Deep State" or "globalist" than war in Iran.

One of the seminal moments of "Deep State" was when US and British intel agencies helped the Shah overthrown a socialist (and likely USSR-aligned), democratically elected leadership, who had just nationalized Iran's oil industry. Wiki article on the nationalization

This led to the organic revolution in 1979 by the Islamic extremists to overthrow the Shah, which basically kicked off the era of increased conflict in the region. Not only did Iran become a major sponsor of terrorism against Western interest and those aligned with Israel, but it also became a major beacon of conflict (from terrorism to full on wars) with Sunni Islam. This almost immediately led to the US propping up the minority, Sunni Bath party in Iraq to support Saddam in the extremely bloody Iran-Iraq war of the 80s, which led to 2 wars in Iraq. The increased threat of Iran against Israel raised the stakes so to speak, which led to the radicalization of Saudi Arabian Sunnis against the US, leading to AQ and OBL (and we all know what happened there).

The "Deep State" has been trying consistently since 1979 to figure out a way to go to war directly with Iran. The only reason this ever subsides is that the effects of the radicalization in the region the "Deep State" caused led us to have to focus elsewhere pretty often after the 80s. But once those other threats died down for a moment, the "Deep State" became hyper-focused on Iran again.

Prior to this past week, this was the meme from those who focus on the "Deep State". Somehow along the way, as the GWB-era neocon essence has flowed freely, those who claim to oppose the "Deep State" have apparently forgotten that stance.

Israel/Mossad in recent times has stepped up as the primary driver of this "Deep State", "anti-terror" position in the region, so we cannot pretend that they're somehow separate from the "Deep State". They are, in many ways, the "Deep State". While Mossad is not always aligned with US or Western interests/intel (hence the quotations on "Deep State", as it's a malleable term), you can be pretty assured that any major operation in the ME relies heavily on intel and support from Mossad, as they're the major player in the region without peer.

So, given all of this, how can people who oppose the "Deep State" so blindly fall into an obvious "Deep State"-driven conflict?

I mean, this is bordering on full on "globalist" scheme, beyond just the "Deep State" label.