Interests And Armageddon: The Third Gulf War Shakes Middle East – Analysis

March 23, 2026 
 Geopolitical Monitor
By Jose Miguel Alonso-Trabanco


War has broken out in the Middle East once again, but this time the writing on the wall brings an unusually ominous message. Although the Third Gulf War is unlikely to be the last showdown between Iranian and Israeli-US forces, this ongoing conflict is heading in a dangerous direction. What both sides are fighting over is the strategic prerogative to redraw the very balance of power in West Asia, so the aftermath could produce a prolonged local ‘Cold War,’ a new hegemonic cycle, or widespread anarchy. The ripple effects are not just encouraging the proliferation of regional seismicity in multiple overlapping layers. This front is a facet of a broader chessboard in which the multipolar great game of high politics plays out. But perhaps the most troubling aspect of the war is that its politico-strategic logic of statecraft is interwoven with the incendiary grammar of religious millenarianism.

Geopolitical Outlook

The current US-Israeli Iran war is the culmination of a long-range trajectory. As the late Shabtai Shavit, former Mossad chief, noted, Israel and Iran have been locked in a low-intensity war for decades. In the multidimensional operational theatres of this dispute, both sides have relied on grey-zone tactics and mosaic warfare, but no checkmate has occurred. Unlike the Soviet-sponsored Arab armies that intended to destroy Israel through clumsily planned invasions, Iran has mobilized nonstate proxy militias, attritional tools, and sectarian violence. Even high-ranking members of the Israeli defense apparatus and intelligence community regard the Islamic Republic as a sophisticated adversary. Considering the profile of Iran as a Persian and Shiite nation, Iran’s hostility towards Israel validates its pretensions as an aspiring overlord of the Arab and Muslim worlds. Israel, in order to address Teheran’s aggressive bid for regional hegemony and the latent threat of hypothetical Iranian nukes, has counterattacked with covert operations, cyber warfare, and targeted assassinations. Based on a zero-sum logic, the Israelis have also supported Sunni militias opposed to the Iranian-led ‘axis of resistance’ to dismantle Teheran’s regional sphere of influence. As a state with little strategic depth and limited manpower, Israel has invested several assets in the development of a strong security partnership with the US against Iran.

Long gone are the days in which Israel and Iran joined forces, both openly and clandestinely, against the military and (geo)political challenge of Arab nationalism. Once the threshold of direct kinetic was crossed in the Twelve-Day War, the spectre of a wider regional war is nowadays haunting much of West Asia. The ongoing 2026 rematch is dangerous because the belligerents have incentives to double down rather than de-escalate. The Americans want to permanently degrade Iranian military capabilities and annihilate the material and infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but it is unclear if this can deliver long-term satisfactory results without unpleasant blowback. Israel’s endgame goes further. Considering both the patterns of Israeli strategic thinking and recent statements made by Israeli commentators, Jerusalem wants regime change in Tehran, a de facto Balkanisation and the ignition of a civil war. The point is that Iran is never again able to threaten the survival of the Jewish state in any meaningful way. This discernible Carthaginian strategy, reflected in the implementation of the so-called Dahiya doctrine in the Iranian capital and a strong support for Kurdish separatist militias, may backfire.

When confronted with external sources of danger, nations like Iran are inclined to rally around the flag, regardless of who is in charge, rather than capitulate. This political reality means that, even if the Ayatollahs’ theocratic regime is overthrown, what comes after may be even less tractable. The fallout of a humiliating defeat (e.g. imposed with tactical nukes) would give the IRGC, the core of the Iranian deep state, an opportunity to take over as a military junta more closely aligned with China, Russia, and North Korea. The materialization of this secular military government would sideline moderates willing to negotiate some sort of détente. In a post-war revanchist Iran, there would be no place for the likes of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani or Mir Hossein Mousavi, let alone an organized opposition. Under these conditions, a renewed Iranian military buildup and yet another rematch would be guaranteed. On the other side of the spectrum, the fall of the Iranian state and the breakout of a Syria-like internal conflict would invite, sooner or later, the intervention of neighboring powers. States like Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey could fill the resulting power voids, carve up buffers and advance their preferred versions of regional order. This would place them in a collision course with an Israel driven by a siege mentality. Senior Israeli politicians have already identified Turkey as “the next Iran.” In the best-case scenario, backchannel diplomacy can forge a negotiated ceasefire (which seems doubtful because the existing shadow of duplicity cannot be easily dissipated), but a long-term solution remains elusive. One way or another, the idea of Reza Pahlavi as an enlightened pro-Western king who will bring peace, reconciliation, and liberal democracy is unrealistic.


Thanks to both their nuclear arsenal and air superiority, the Americans and the Israelis have an upper hand in the battlefield, as well as escalation dominance. The targeted assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the destruction of both Iranian military materiel and strategic nerve centers confirm this assessment. Despite this comparative weakness, the Iranians are not powerless. Their response includes, aside from reprisals aimed at both the US forces and Israeli targets, the mobilization of proxy militias, attacks against critical infrastructure nodes in the Gulf petro-monarchies, and the sabotage of freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for the flow of Middle Eastern oil to faraway consumer markets. Considering that advanced economies are still powered by hydrocarbons, these measures have the critical mass to dislocate energy markets, industrial cycles, interconnectedness networks, financial stability, and economic normalcy in order to increase the costs and the risks for Iran’s enemies. Tehran has also adapted to this theatre of engagement through additional measures like the de-centralization of military chains of command and drone swarms. The upcoming 2026 FIFA World Cup provides plenty of attractive targets for Iranian-led terrorist masterminds.

Neither side seems eager to peacefully settle this matter. Instead, there are structural incentives to raise the stakes. Iran is, metaphorically, a very hard nut to crack. The country’s heartland, in the Iranian plateau, is a natural fortressshielded by the Zagros and Elburz mountains. Iran’s territorial and demographic proportions are superior to those of many Middle Eastern states. Thus, expeditionary warfare with boots on the ground is hardly a palatable choice for potential invaders. In short, intensive airpower alone is unlikely to vanquish the Iranians. Another crucial factor is that Iran, unlike artificial Middle Eastern states that are byproducts of either Sykes-Picot or the injection of petrodollars, belongs to another category of political lifeforms.


Iran is a Persian civilization-state, with roots that go back to the Achaemenids and the Sassanids, whose unbroken organic evolution confers a heightened degree of resilience. The Persians have outlived extinct powerful foes like the Mongols, the Romans, and the Byzantines. Modern-day Iran is, as heir of these ancient imperial traditions, a multiethnic polity that integrates Indo-European Persians, Azeris, Arabs, Armenians, Balochis, Jews, and Kurds, amongst others. Despite some internal animosities, Iran is more cohesive than fragmentary states like Lebanon, Iraq, or Syria. As such, Iran has withstood the impact of coercive economic sanctions, regional wars, civil unrest, airstrikes, the mysterious death of President Ebrahim Raisiand the loss of proxy satrapies across the region. The Iranian system of architectural institutionalized governance is a solid and impersonal machinery. Finally, the IRGC is a dangerous force to be reckoned with, due to their irregular warfare tradecraft, foreign intelligence capabilities, and grip over the Iranian system of political economy.

Israel is, in turn, an impressive textbook example that states can come back to life. Therefore, Israeli leaders are aware of the tragic fact that, in a violent neighborhood shaped by bitter rivalries and abundant enemies, defeat in war by a powerful foe usually means annihilation and carnage. This explains Israel’s efforts to secure strategic partnerships with great powers like the United States and India, especially in a multipolar environment. Such reality explains Israel’s relentless pursuit of regional military and intelligence superiority. Whereas Israel fought various existential wars in the heyday of the Cold War against Baathist armies, the vectors of Iran’s geopolitical revisionism cross the red lines of Israeli national security in various ways. Likewise, Iranian suzerainty over much of West Asia would represent an obstacle for an eventual Israeli territorial expansion as the population of this Levantine state soars. Israel has conventionally and unconventionally engaged Iranian-sponsored militias like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Although no conclusive victory has been achieved, Israel has managed to turn the tables and now the enemy’s ultimate center of gravity is in the crosshairs of the IDF.


Finally, neither lacks the esprit de corps (Asabiyyah, in Ibn Khaldun’s teachings) which undergirds the strength of nationalism. Moreover, reciprocal attacks against civilian infrastructure —unlawful acts of collective punishment— encourage Iranians and Israelis to keep on fighting. As Thucydides warned, honor, along with fear and greed, can push men into the darkness of the abyss. Despite self-evident differentials in military power projection capabilities, the balance of resolve shows parity. Hence, more blood will stain the shifting Middle Eastern sands before Teheran or Jerusalem can decisively emerge as the last man standing.

Great Power Politics

This conflict is heavily embedded into the dynamics of high politics. Aside from its close ties to Israel and an intermittent mutual animosity, the US has its own reasons to attack Iran. Although the US is self-reliant in oil supplies, Washington cannot tolerate Iranian hegemony in a region whose fossil fuels are critical for global energy security, especially considering the energy-intensive needs of AI platforms and data centers. Plus, the second Trump administration is trying to undermine Chinese and Russian alliance networks. This new rollback strategy includes regime change, the beheading of adversarial governments and coercion without control, rather than military campaigns followed by nation building. The point is to alter the strategic alignment of these states without engaging in costly and unwinnable “forever wars.” Iran was also blacklisted by Washington because of its antagonism towards dollar-denominated financial circuits. Although US forces have decimated Iranian military readiness and killed the Iranian head of state, it is unclear what a strategic victory looks like.

This intervention, contrary to the logic of self-restraint is a dangerous gamble because the long-term risks and costs may be superior to the short-term benefits. As a result of US airstrikes, Iran is now weaker, but the IRGC is now getting stronger. Then again, the calculated demolition of Iran would be leveraged as an engine of chaos that would engulf Washington’s Eurasian rivals. The task of scrambling over the leftovers of Iran (natural resources, indigenous technologies, arms caches, regional enclaves, cultural treasures) would keep them busy. For US generalship, this would not be a bad outcome, as long as it is managed in a manner that does not lead to a protracted quagmire with no way out or imperial overstretch. Will Trump follow the footsteps of Alexander the Great or Crassus?

China is concerned because strategic instability in the Persian Gulf threatens its energy security, especially considering the large-scale needs of its advanced industrial sectors. The propagation of spillovers across the Greater Middle East is also problematic for the ‘Middle Kingdom,’ as some investment projects and logistical corridors related to the Belt and Road Initiative transit through this turbulent region. On the flip side, the relocation of US military assets from East Asia to frontline service in West Asia temporarily alters the balance of power in China’s geopolitical perimeter. The perspective of Russia is nuanced too. In partial compliance with an emerging bilateral defense partnership, the Russians have apparently assisted the Iranians with intelligence on US targets, but Moscow does not support bellicosity toward Israel or the GCC states. The former, due to the presence of Russian émigrés, is partially regarded as an informal member of the so-called “Russian world.” The latter are economic partners that share a common interest in overcoming the system of petrodollar hegemony. Furthermore, the Kremlin certainly does not mind both higher oil prices and a messy Middle Eastern conflict from which Washington cannot easily disengage. Despite their transactional ties to Tehran, the Russians are not interested in a strong Iran that may later challenge their geopolitical interests in corners of the post-Soviet space such as the Caucasus or Central Asia.

A Clash of Fundamentalisms

Hardcore political realism considers states to be akin to billiard balls whose behavior responds to the Newtonian laws of power politics. Nevertheless, this lens does not account for the full-spectrum complexity of this war. Complementary angles are needed to make sense of it. According to Carl Schmitt, modern political life is —despite its outward secular façade— heavily shaped by the theoretical echoes of theological concepts. Aside from its worldly dimension, this conflict shows that, far from being an archaic anachronism, the connection between statecraft and religion is alive in the 21st century, and not just based on the utilitarian logic of psychological warfare. As Machiavelli argued, whereas unarmed prophets usually perish, their armed counterparts conquer and triumph. In this case, religious providentialism is —for both sides— a source of legitimacy, driver of mutual hostility, theoretical basis to claim a moral high ground and ideological morale booster. A common denominator shared by Iran and Israel is an illiberal theocratic inclination. Accordingly, the warrior ethos of these societies is rational, but radical.

The Iranians, once on the verge of building a Shiite Crescent as a linchpin of regional hegemony, have, under the pressure of Israeli-US carpet bombing, been cornered into a reactive, but bellicose position. This asymmetric approach does not respond just to the pragmatic necessities of military statecraft and the existing correlation of forces. Said course of action is also aligned with the tenets of Shia Islam that revere the virtues of martial resistance and popular defiance. One could even argue that Tehran’s underground pursuit of nuclear weapons has been carried out under the covert umbrella of Taqiyya (public dissimulation and concealment intended to hide one’s private intentions). Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the Iranian state is not only framing the war as a Clausewitzian confrontation over relative gains and self-interests. For both domestic and international audiences, this conflict is being portrayed as a pious cosmic struggle against the earthly representatives of “demonic cabals.”

This apocalyptic worldview also reflects esoteric expectations about the redemptive arrival of Mahdi as a figure whose revelation will lead to the defeat of tyranny and evil. Such perceptions evoke an understanding of the concept of the political, the existential distinction between friends and enemies, through the lens of a religious creed. Yet, the mobilization of these Manichean archetypical representations goes beyond self-righteous propaganda and cognitive operations. The purpose of this seemingly unhinged sectarian fervor is to encourage Iranians to fight and endure hardship for the sake of a victory whose heavenly transcendence is supposedly greater than themselves as individual citizens, combatants and/or believers.

Aside from national security concerns, Israel’s moves against Iran and its regional pseudopods is, to a certain extent, also driven by religious zeal. Zionism originally arose as a secular movement which borrowed elements from Western philosophies, including liberalism, nationalism, and socialism. The establishment of Israel as a national state was officially justified based on the principles of international law, national liberation, self-determination, and sovereignty, not the fulfilment of Biblical prophecies. However, the Israeli political system and the ongoing war effort are in the hands of hardline religious Zionists like Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. Modern Israel is ideologically closer to the teachings of Rabbi Meir Kahane than to the secular ideals of Theodor Herzl and David Ben Gurion. The Israeli way of warfare is underpinned by the contents of the Pentateuch which chronicle the ruthless military prowess of the ancient Israelites, a proud warrior people, against their enemies in the Holy Land.


Unlike Western doctrines about the acceptable parameters of a just war, the Old Testament does not prescribe an operational distinction between enemy combatants and civilians, both of which are regarded as legitimate targets. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has framed the conflict as a continuation of the timeless mandate to eradicate the seed of Amalek and Haman. Netanyahu’s increasingly hawkish attitude has been fueled not just by an opportunistic intent to profit from regional chaos, but also by the growing politico-ideological influence of both the national religious movement (Dati Leumi) and Orthodox sects like Chabad Lubavitch. Unlike less politically militant Haredi groups such as Satmar (distrustful of Zionism), these factions champion the expansionist project of a Greater Israel. Notably, more than three decades ago, the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, asked a young Netanyahu to intervene as a herald who will hasten the promised arrival of the Messianic era. Originally created as an outreach Hassidic movement, Chabad has become an influential cultish organization whose clerics rub shoulders with world leaders in Western and non-Western societies. Even the name of operation ‘Roaring Lion’ references the royal crest of the Davidic monarchy.

The US is not immune from this phenomenon. The intent to attack Iran cannot be entirely attributed to either to politico-strategic national interests or the influence of AIPAC and similar lobbies. This war is also enthusiastically endorsed by Evangelical Christians close to both GOP senior leaders and grassroots activists. For these Christian Zionists, military intervention against Israel’s enemies is a desirable shortcut, even if it triggers Armageddon, to bring the second coming of Jesus. Ironically, this mindset contrasts with the spiritual detachment from Israel amongst younger generations of Jewish American progressives.


The views expressed in this article belong to the author(s) alone and do not necessarily reflect those of Geopoliticalmonitor.com.

Geopolitical Monitor

Geopoliticalmonitor.com is an open-source intelligence collection and forecasting service, providing research, analysis and up to date coverage on situations and events that have a substantive impact on political, military and economic affairs.