Dahilon Yassin Mohamoda
March 9, 2026
While the war between the United States, Israel, and Iran may appear to have erupted. Suddenly, its origins lie in deeper structural tensions, competing regional security perceptions, and broader shifts in the global balance of power.
This article does not aim to offer a formal academic analysis. Its purpose is simply to unpack the conflict and provide curious readers with an understanding of the deeper forces shaping the confrontation. In doing so, it loosely follows the conflict framework associated with peace researcher Johan Galtung, which encourages looking beyond visible violence to the deeper structural and narrative forces that sustain conflicts. In Galtung’s approach, conflicts operate on three interconnected levels: direct violence, structural violence, and cultural violence. Direct violence refers to the visible acts of war and destruction that dominate headlines. Structural violence points to the political, economic, and security arrangements that generate persistent tensions. Cultural violence, meanwhile, involves the narratives and perceptions that make confrontation appear justified or inevitable.
Examining the conflict through these layers helps explain why crises that appear sudden are often rooted in deeper and longer-term dynamics.
A Turning Point: The Twelve-Day War of June 2025
The ongoing U.S.–Israel–Iran confrontation did not emerge suddenly in the early hours of 28 February 2026. Rather, it represents the latest escalation in a long cycle of tensions shaped by shifting regional power balances, competing security perceptions, and the gradual erosion of diplomatic constraints. What is visible today, the open military confrontation, is only the most immediate layer of a deeper geopolitical struggle. A major turning point occurred in June 2025, when Israel and Iran fought a brief but intense twelve-day war (13–24 June 2025) that marked the most direct military confrontation between the two states in decades. Israel launched large-scale surprise strikes on Iranian military and nuclear facilities, arguing that Tehran posed an increasingly urgent strategic threat. Iran responded with missile attacks on Israeli targets, pushing the long-running shadow conflict
between the two countries into open warfare. As the confrontation escalated, the United States became involved, carrying out limited strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities while simultaneously supporting Israel’s missile defence efforts.
This confrontation should be understood within the broader context of the evolving strategic rivalry between Israel and Iran that has shaped Middle Eastern geopolitics over the past two decades. What began as indirect competition—through proxy actors, cyber operations, and covert actions—has gradually moved toward more direct military confrontation.
To better understand the current escalation, it is useful to unpack the confrontation across several interconnected layers: the visible military conflict; the deeper strategic rivalry between Israel and Iran; the wider regional competition for influence across the Middle East; the economic and global strategic dimensions of the crisis; and the narratives and identities that shape how the conflict is interpreted and mobilized politically. Although presented as analytical dimensions for clarity, these factors are not neatly separated. They interact less like distinct layers of an onion and more like strands in a web.
Developments in one dimension can quickly influence dynamics in another, producing a complex network of forces that shapes the conflict’s trajectory.
The first and most visible layer of the confrontation is the military escalation itself. The current phase of the conflict intensified with a sudden wave of Israeli and U.S. strikes on Iranian targets, sharply rising tensions across the region. Missile strikes, drone attacks, cyber operations, and threats to regional shipping routes now dominate headlines and shape how the conflict is perceived around the world. At this level, the situation appears as a direct military confrontation between Israel and Iran, with the United States directly drawn into the crisis as
Israel’s principal strategic partner. Yet focusing only on the exchange of missiles and drone attacks risks obscuring the deeper forces that sustain the confrontation. To understand why escalation repeatedly returns despite periods of relative calm, it is necessary to look beyond the battlefield to the longer strategic
A rivalry that has shaped relations between the two countries for decades.
Layer Two: The Strategic Rivalry
Beneath the visible military escalation lies a deeper strategic rivalry that has shaped relations between Israel and Iran for decades. Each side views the other not merely as a competitor but as a long-term security threat. Israeli leaders have repeatedly warned that Iran’s missile capabilities and nuclear ambitions could fundamentally alter the regional balance of power. From Israel’s perspective, the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran represents a long-term strategic, and potentially existential, threat that could transform the deterrence dynamics of the Middle East, a concern widely shared by the United States and several of its regional partners. Iran, for its part, sees Israel’s military dominance and its close partnership with the United States as strategic threat and as part of a broader effort to contain Iranian influence across the Middle East.
This strategic rivalry also intersects with Iran’s tense relations with several Gulf states, most notably Saudi Arabia. For years, regional competition between Tehran and Riyadh has reflected broader geopolitical and ideological differences, as both countries seek to shape the balance of power across the Middle East. Although recent diplomatic efforts have eased some tensions, this rivalry continues to influence regional alignments and adds another layer of complexity to the wider confrontation involving Israel and Iran. For much of this rivalry, confrontation has unfolded indirectly—through covert operations, cyber activities, and limited strikes rather than full-scale war. Yet this shadow conflict carries an inherent risk: when deterrence fails or red lines are crossed, escalation can rapidly shift from indirect competition to open military confrontation, a dynamic illustrated by the recent escalation.
Layer Three: Regional Power Competition in the Middle East
The rivalry between Israel and Iran does not unfold in isolation. It is embedded within a broader regional contest for influence across the Middle East, where alliances, proxy networks, and competing security partnerships shape the balance of power. Iran has sought to expand its influence through allied groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen. Israel, in turn, has worked to counter what it perceives as an emerging strategic threat. Weakening these proxy forces and limiting Iran’s regional reach—alongside reshaping the strategic landscape in arenas such as Syria and strengthening relations with several Arab states through the Abraham Accords—have therefore become central elements of Israel’s regional strategy.
Regional dynamics are further influenced by the security concerns of many Gulf states regarding Iran’s growing military capabilities and regional influence. In response to these perceived threats, several Gulf countries have strengthened their security partnerships with the United States, leading to the establishment of major American military facilities across the region. These partnerships extend beyond the military sphere: many Gulf states maintain deep economic ties with the United States and have invested heavily in American markets, reinforcing a broader strategic relationship that combines security cooperation with economic interdependence. The presence of these bases reflects the continued reliance of many Gulf states on U.S. security guarantees as part of the regional balance of power.
At the same time, the expansion of U.S. military infrastructure in Iran’s immediate neighbourhood has long been viewed in Tehran as a strategic challenge. This perception helps explain why Iran has targeted U.S. military bases in the Gulf, actions that reinforce Iranian narratives of encirclement and external pressure. As a result, tensions between Israel and Iran rarely remain confined to their own borders. Instead, they intersect with wider regional rivalries involving Gulf states and a network of armed groups operating across the Middle East. From a structural perspective, these dynamics reflect a regional security architecture in which competing alliances and military deployments generate persistent tensions and mutual suspicion.
At the core of many of these regional dynamics lies the Palestinian question, which continues to resonate across political, ideological, and strategic debates in the Middle East. Its enduring significance means that escalation between Israel and Iran can quickly reverberate across multiple fronts, drawing in actors and grievances that extend far beyond the immediate confrontation.
Layer Four: Energy and Economic Stakes
Beyond the Middle East, the confrontation also carries significant global economic implications. The region remains central to global energy markets and major trade routes, meaning that escalation can quickly affect economic stability far beyond the immediate battlefield.
One of the most critical concerns is the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s busiest shipping routes and the principal gateway to the oil and gas fields, refineries, and export terminals of the Gulf. Nearly a fifth of the world’s oil and a substantial share of global liquefied natural gas exports pass through this narrow waterway. Any disruption to shipping through the strait, whether through military escalation, blockades, or attacks on tankers, could rapidly affect global energy supplies. In this sense, the confrontation is also connected to the broader struggle for influence over vital energy resources and strategic maritime routes. Control or disruption of these energy lifelines carries consequences not only for the Middle East but also for the wider global economy. Even the perception of instability around the Strait of Hormuz can quickly ripple
through international energy markets, driving price volatility and economic uncertainty across the world.
Beyond the regional arena, the confrontation between Israel, supported by the United States, and Iran also reflects wider shifts in the global strategic environment. The conflict is unfolding at a time when the international system appears to be entering a more competitive and fragmented phase. Concerns surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme also add a global dimension to the confrontation, as efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation intersect with the strategic interests of major powers and the broader international security architecture. In this emerging landscape, major powers increasingly compete across multiple domains—military, economic, and technological—while regional conflicts often intersect with broader geopolitical rivalries. The growing strategic alignment of Russia and China, alongside intensifying competition with the United States and its allies, illustrates this broader trend.
Connections between these conflicts can already be observed. Russia’s use of Iranian-made drones in its war in Ukraine—while Moscow has accused the United States and its allies of supporting Kyiv—illustrates how regional conflicts can intersect and reinforce one another.
At the same time, Iran’s confrontation with Israel and the United States unfolds within a broader geopolitical environment in which major powers such as Russia and China are often accused of providing technological or political support to Tehran. Together, these dynamics highlight how regional confrontations increasingly intersect with wider patterns of global strategic competition. Seen from this wider perspective, both the war in Ukraine and the confrontation involving Iran reflect a deeper transition in the global order. Rather than isolated crises, they illustrate a period in which established patterns of international cooperation are increasingly giving way to renewed strategic competition among major powers. In this sense, these conflicts can be understood as symptoms of a broader shift from a U.S.-led unipolar system toward a more contested and potentially multipolar international order.
These broader geopolitical dynamics also extend beyond the immediate theatres of conflict. Strategic competition in the Middle East increasingly intersects with the security of critical maritime corridors linking the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the wider Indian Ocean region.
Layer Six: Narratives and Identity
At the deepest level, conflicts are also shaped by narratives, identities, and historical experiences. Political leaders and societies often interpret events through powerful narratives of threat, resistance, and security. These narratives influence how each side understands the intentions of the other and can make compromise more difficult. In the confrontation between Israel and Iran, identity and ideology play a particularly important role. Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the leadership in Tehran has framed parts of its foreign policy through a narrative of resistance against Western influence and support for Palestinian causes. Within this framework, opposition to Israel has become intertwined with broader ideological and political narratives about sovereignty, justice, and
resistance.
The Palestinian question also plays a powerful role in shaping regional narratives surrounding the conflict. For many actors across the Middle East, the Palestinian cause remains a symbolically and politically charged issue that influences public opinion, diplomatic positioning, and ideological framing. As a result, the confrontation between Israel and Iran is often interpreted not only through the lens of state rivalry but also through broader narratives of resistance, legitimacy, and regional solidarity linked to the Palestinian struggle.
On the Israeli side, national identity and security perceptions are deeply shaped by historical experiences, including the legacy of past wars and the memory of existential threats faced by the state since its creation. Religious symbolism and historical narratives can also intersect with political discourse, reinforcing perceptions of legitimacy, resistance, and security. At the same time, debates surrounding territorial control, settlement policies, and Israel’s long-term strategic posture in the region have contributed to broader regional perceptions that Israeli policy carries expansionist tendencies, perceptions that often feed into competing narratives across the Middle East. When geopolitical rivalries become intertwined with identity, ideology, and religious symbolism, conflicts often become more emotionally charged and more difficult to resolve. Over time, such narratives become embedded in public discourse, shaping how societies interpret events, assign responsibility, and define acceptable political outcomes. This deeper layer helps explain why conflicts that appear solvable in strategic or diplomatic terms often prove far more difficult to resolve in practice.
Conclusion: Looking Beyond the Battlefield
When viewed only through the lens of military escalation, the confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran may appear as a sudden and unpredictable crisis. Yet when examined across multiple layers, a deeper picture emerges. The missile strikes and military exchanges dominating headlines represent only the most visible expression of a complex geopolitical landscape shaped by strategic rivalry, regional dynamics, economic interests, global power competition, and powerful political narratives.
Seen in this wider context, the confrontation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran reflects a broader transformation in the international system. Long-standing patterns of cooperation and restraint are increasingly giving way to renewed strategic competition among major powers. Conflicts such as the war following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and escalating tensions surrounding Iran illustrate a period in which the post–Cold War order, largely shaped by the dominance of the United States after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is gradually giving way to a more contested and potentially multipolar international landscape.
Understanding the war through this broader lens does not diminish the immediate human suffering caused by violence. Rather, it highlights how contemporary conflicts are shaped by overlapping layers of structural pressures, historical grievances, strategic competition, and competing visions of political order.
About the Author: Dahilon Yassin Mohamoda is a commentator on geopolitics, security dynamics, and political developments in the Horn of Africa and the wider Middle East.