By Aman Jaswal
The escalating confrontation between Israel and Iran is often framed as a regional security dispute. In reality, it reflects a deeper geopolitical struggle shaped by historical intervention, competing identity narratives, and the enduring global politics of energy.
The current tensions, unfolding against the backdrop of sustained American support for Israel, raises a broader question: are we witnessing another cycle of intervention reminiscent of Iraq, or the emergence of a new geopolitical confrontation centred on Iran, yet again at the price of weapons of mass destruction? Or is it a power quest?
Understanding the present moment requires revisiting the historical architecture of external involvement in Iran’s political economy. It’s not happened the first time, In the early twentieth century, the D’Arcy oil concession granted Britain extensive control over Iranian oil production and exports. Although Iran produced the oil, a disproportionate share of the profits flowed outward to British interests, leaving the Iranian state with limited benefit from its own natural resources. The arrangement became emblematic of the broader pattern through which imperial powers shaped the political and economic trajectory of the Middle East.
This imbalance persisted until the premiership of Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran’s democratically elected leader who nationalised the country’s oil industry in 1951 in an attempt to reclaim economic sovereignty for the Iranian people. Mossadegh’s move directly challenged Western strategic interests. In 1953 he was removed from power through a coup backed by the United States and the United Kingdom, restoring the Shah to authority and re-entrenching Western influence in Iran’s political order. The consequences of that intervention extended far beyond the immediate moment. The Shah’s rule, widely perceived domestically as aligned with Western interests, eventually contributed to the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which transformed Iran’s political identity and reshaped its relationship with the international system.
Seen through this historical lens, contemporary tensions between Iran, Israel, and the United States cannot be understood merely as isolated security disputes. Rather, they are embedded in a longer history in which external intervention, energy politics, and strategic competition have repeatedly shaped the region’s geopolitical landscape. From a theoretical perspective, the rivalry reflects a core assumption within International Relations theory: in an anarchic international system, states prioritise survival and power, and threat perception often drives strategic behaviour more strongly than objective capability.
The present debate surrounding Iran’s role in regional security also reveals contradictions within the global nuclear order. Iran is formally a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and remains subject to monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency, whereas Israel has never joined the treaty and maintains a long-standing policy of nuclear ambiguity. Although Iran officially does not possess nuclear weapons, Israel is widely believed to maintain a substantial nuclear arsenal. Such asymmetries inevitably shape competing threat perceptions: what Israel frames as a strategic threat from Iran is often interpreted in Tehran as a broader imbalance of regional power.
Historical memory further complicates these perceptions. Israel’s military interventions, including the Suez Crisis and the 1982 Lebanon War, remain embedded in regional narratives about power and sovereignty. Iran, meanwhile, positions itself as a challenger to what it perceives as Western-backed regional dominance. These contrasting narratives reinforce a cycle of suspicion in which each state interprets the other’s actions through the lens of existential insecurity.
The geopolitical implications of the Israel–Iran rivalry extend far beyond the two states themselves. When global powers intervene in regional conflicts, the resulting shifts in alliances, economic pressures, and security calculations reverberate throughout the international system. The United States’ long-standing sanctions regime against Iran has been a central component of this dynamic. While sanctions were designed to limit Iranian regional influence and constrain its nuclear ambitions, they have also reshaped global energy markets and diplomatic alignments.
The geopolitical environment has become even more complex in the aftermath of Western sanctions on Russia, which intensified global demand for alternative energy suppliers and renewed international attention toward Iranian energy resources. In this context, American policy has frequently oscillated between confrontation and negotiation. Diplomatic initiatives have periodically emerged alongside strategies of economic pressure and military deterrence, reflecting an effort to manage regional stability while preserving strategic influence. Yet history demonstrates that interventions intended to stabilise geopolitical landscapes often produce unintended consequences.
The political vacuums created by previous conflicts in the Middle East contributed to the emergence of extremist organisations such as Al-Qaeda and Islamic State. These groups thrived in environments shaped by state collapse, fractured governance structures, and prolonged instability. A prolonged confrontation between Iran and Israel risks generating similar dynamics by deepening sectarian polarisation and widening proxy conflicts across the region. This breeds grounds for radicalisation.
Beyond strategy and power politics, the Israel–Iran rivalry is also deeply shaped by identity and historical memory. Iran’s political identity is strongly rooted in Shia Islam, a community that historically experienced marginalisation within the broader Sunni-majority Muslim world. This historical experience informs Iran’s perception of itself as both a protector of Shia communities and a challenger to regional hierarchies it perceives as externally imposed. Whereas, Israel’s national identity, by contrast, is shaped by centuries of persecution of Jewish communities culminating in the Holocaust. As a result, Israeli strategic doctrine places a strong emphasis on pre-emptive defence against potential existential threats. The belief that hostile actors may seek the destruction of the Israeli state continues to influence its foreign policy and security calculations. This vis-à-vis game creates what we refer to as the defence mechanism currently being pursued by both the states. When geopolitical rivalry is filtered through such deeply embedded identity narratives, the conflict often transcends conventional strategic competition. Each side begins to perceive the other not simply as a rival for influence but as a threat to its historical survival and political legitimacy.
Energy politics forms another critical dimension of this confrontation. The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most vital maritime chokepoints, through which a significant portion of global oil exports passes. A large share of these exports flows toward Asian markets, particularly China and other rapidly industrialising economies. Any escalation that threatens the stability of this route would have immediate consequences for global energy markets and supply chains.
Control over energy flows has long shaped global power politics. Disruptions to this strategic corridor could intensify inflationary pressures across Asian economies while simultaneously reshaping strategic calculations among major powers dependent on Gulf energy resources. The Israel–Iran confrontation therefore carries implications that extend far beyond regional politics, intersecting directly with global economic stability.
Diplomacy in the context of the Israel–Iran rivalry rarely produces simple resolutions. Both states operate within strategic frameworks that prioritise deterrence, security, and ideological legitimacy. For Israel, neutralising perceived strategic threats remains a central pillar of its national security doctrine. For Iran, preserving regional influence while safeguarding its revolutionary identity remains equally fundamental.
If powerful nations such as the United States begin to use their economic and political leverage to disrupt smaller economies, the stability of the global order inevitably comes under strain. Recent developments illustrate this concern. During the Trump administration, strong pressure was placed on Venezuela’s leadership, particularly around control and access to its oil resources. Within days of escalating tensions, negotiations emerged in which Venezuelan authorities appeared to concede significant ground regarding oil exports. At the same time, the administration reinforced sanctions on Cuba, framing them as measures intended to pressure the Cuban government and support democratic change.
However, these actions raise broader economic and ethical questions. Cuba now faces the risk of economic pressures and inflationary instability similar to the trajectory that unfolded in Venezuela under sustained sanctions and external pressure. Such strategies prompt an important debate about the contemporary application of Western liberal economic and political models. In an increasingly multipolar world, the use of economic coercion by powerful states raises difficult questions about sovereignty, fairness, and the long-term sustainability of the global economic order.
The current escalation ultimately illustrates the limits of purely militarised approaches to regional security. While deterrence and strategic signalling remain central to the foreign policy doctrines of both states, the continued reliance on confrontation risks deepening instability across an already fragile geopolitical landscape. A sustainable regional order will require renewed diplomatic engagement that addresses not only nuclear concerns but also the broader security architecture of the Middle East, including regional proxy conflicts, energy security, and the balance of power among competing actors. Without such a framework, periodic escalations between Israel and Iran will continue to reverberate far beyond the region, shaping global energy markets, security alignments, and the wider international order for years to come.
Author: Dr Aman Jaswal – Lecturer of International Relations and security studies at
University of Staffordshire, UK, specialising in conflict dynamics across South and West Asia. In addition to his academic work, he has contributed to the training of practitioners through the UK Ministry of Defence, teaching courses on global and regional security, and on the evolution of conflicts in border regions.
(The opinions expressed in this article belong only to the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of World Geostrategic Insights).
Image Source: AP