Geopolitical dynamics of US&Israel/Iran conflict and its regional implications - OPINION
By Aytan Aliyeva
Competing narratives in the United States – Israel and Iran conflict
The conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran escalated significantly in February 2026. Each side explains the war through its own security concerns, political priorities, and interpretations of regional stability.
From the United States and Israel’s perspective, the attacks were presented as a preventive and defensive action. Washington and Tel Aviv argue that Iran had been developing a nuclear program that could soon produce a nuclear weapon and that this posed a direct threat to Israel, US forces, and regional stability. The US officials claimed Iran was getting dangerously close to nuclear capability and that striking nuclear facilities and missile infrastructure was necessary to stop this before it became irreversible. Another argument from the US side is that Iran supports militant groups across the Middle East that have attacked Israel and targeted US interests in the region.
From Iran’s perspective, the attacks are viewed as an unjustified act of aggression and an attempt to dominate the region politically and militarily. Iranian leaders argue that their nuclear program is primarily for energy and scientific research and that the accusations of building nuclear weapons are exaggerated or politically motivated. They claim the strikes violate international law and Iran’s sovereignty. Iran also frames the conflict within a broader narrative of resistance against US influence and Israeli power in the Middle East. Tehran argues that Washington and Tel Aviv want to weaken Iran because it supports groups and governments opposed to Israeli policies and Western dominance in the region. After the attacks began, Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes against U.S. bases, oil infrastructure, and allied targets in the region, presenting this as legitimate self-defense.
The US - Israel side describes the war as a preventive effort to stop nuclear proliferation and regional threats, while Iran views it as an aggressive attempt to weaken its sovereignty and influence in the Middle East.
Historical roots of the United States - Iran rivalry
The conflict between the United States - Israel and Iran in recent years is rooted in a long history of political tensions, ideological differences, and regional power competition in the Middle East.
A key turning point was the Iranian Revolution, when Iran’s monarchy was overthrown and replaced by an Islamic Republic. Before 1979, Iran had close relations with the United States and informal cooperation with Israel. After the revolution, Iran adopted a strongly anti-US and anti-Israel foreign policy, calling the United States the “Great Satan” and refusing to recognize Israel’s legitimacy.This reshaped alliances in the region.
Tensions escalated further during the Iran hostage crisis, when Iranian students seized the US embassy in Tehran and held American diplomats hostage for 444 days. This event broke diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran and created deep mistrust that still affects relations today.
Since the 1980s and 1990s, Iran has tried to expand its regional influence by supporting political and militant groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and other allied groups in Iraq, Syria, and Gaza. Israel and the United States consider these groups security threats, while Iran describes them as part of a “resistance axis” against Israel and Western influence.
Another major source of tension has been Iran’s nuclear program. The international community suspected that Iran might develop nuclear weapons, while Iran insisted the program was for peaceful energy purposes. Diplomatic efforts led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, an agreement between Iran and several world powers to limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for lifting sanctions. However, the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018 and re-imposed sanctions, which increased tensions again.
Iran’s regional counterattack strategy
Iran’s counterattacks against several Middle Eastern countries can be understood mainly through political and strategic calculations, not only military reactions. From a political science perspective, Iran’s actions are part of a broader strategy of deterrence, regional influence, and pressure on opponents and their allies.
First, the immediate political reason is deterrence. After the United States and Israel launched strikes on Iran, Iran responded with missile and drone attacks against Israel and against US military bases located in Gulf countries such as Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Many of these countries host American military infrastructure, so from Iran’s viewpoint, they are considered part of the military network supporting the U.S. campaign. By striking these locations, Iran signals that any state allowing foreign military operations against it may become a target.
Second, Iran’s approach aims to create regional pressure on the United States and Israel. Some Iranian strategies have involved spreading the conflict across the region to destabilize neighboring countries and encourage them to push for a cease-fire or diplomatic settlement. If Gulf states fear economic disruption, damage to infrastructure, or instability, they may pressure Washington to reduce military operations against Iran. Iran uses regional escalation as a political bargaining tool.
Third, Iran’s actions reflect a broader geopolitical strategy of balancing power in the Middle East. Iran has long tried to counter the influence of US allies such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Israel. Through direct attacks or through allied groups ( “Axis of Resistance”) Iran attempts to project power and maintain leverage across the region.
Fourth, domestic political factors also play a role. In times of external attack, governments often adopt a strategy of national mobilization and strong retaliation to maintain internal legitimacy. After major strikes on Iran and the killing of important leaders, Iranian authorities framed counterattacks as necessary to defend national sovereignty and demonstrate that Iran remains capable of responding militarily.
Lastly, Iran’s strategy includes economic and geopolitical pressure, for example, targeting infrastructure or threatening key global trade routes such as the Strait of Hormuz. This can disrupt oil markets and international trade, thereby increasing international pressure to end the conflict.
Tensions with Azerbaijan and Türkiye
Regional tensions also involve Iran’s relations with neighboring states, particularly Azerbaijan and Türkiye.
One major factor is Azerbaijan’s close strategic partnership with Israel. Azerbaijan maintains strong military and intelligence cooperation with Israel, including security collaboration and energy links. Iran fears that Azerbaijani territory could potentially be used for Israeli intelligence activities or operations near Iran’s northern border. Azerbaijan is also closely allied with Türkiye. Because Israel and the United States are Iran’s principal geopolitical rivals, countries that maintain strong cooperation with them may be perceived by Tehran as potential strategic threats. This dynamic has contributed to periodic tensions and accusations of hostile actions. However, many of Iran’s actions toward neighboring states function as signals of deterrence rather than attempts at territorial conquest. Analysts often interpret these moves as efforts to strengthen Iran’s negotiating position and discourage regional cooperation with its adversaries.
At the same time, repeated Iranian attacks on Türkiye would carry significant risks because Türkiye is a member of NATO. Such attacks could potentially transform a regional confrontation into a broader international conflict. Türkiye occupies a crucial geopolitical position connecting Europe, the Middle East, and the Caucasus and hosts key NATO military infrastructure, including air bases, radar systems, and missile-defense installations. If escalation intensified, NATO could reinforce its military presence, deploy additional air-defense systems, and expand logistical and intelligence support to Türkiye. In extreme circumstances, alliance members might even consider direct military action against Iranian targets. Nevertheless, invoking NATO’s collective defense mechanism requires political consensus among member states and depends on the scale and nature of the attack. Consequently, NATO would likely prioritize diplomatic coordination and deterrence before considering large-scale military responses.
The position of Western countries
The position of Western countries in the conflict involving Iran is shaped by a combination of security concerns, alliance commitments, and diplomatic caution. Although these actors broadly share strategic alignment with the United States and Israel, their policies tend to emphasize crisis management, regional stability, and the prevention of large-scale escalation.
From a strategic perspective, Western governments perceive Iran’s regional activities, its missile program, support for allied non-state actors, and nuclear ambitions as significant challenges to Middle Eastern stability and to international non-proliferation norms. These concerns have shaped Western policies toward Iran for decades, particularly since disputes over the nuclear program intensified in the early 2000s. The EU, the UK, and Canada those member of transatlantic alliance, therefore tend to view Iranian military actions in the region as destabilizing and as a potential threat to international security frameworks.
At the same time, Western European states have attempted to balance deterrence with diplomacy. The European Union was a central participant in negotiating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Even after the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018, many European governments continued to support the framework as a mechanism to prevent nuclear proliferation and to maintain diplomatic engagement with Iran. Consequently, the EU’s general position in the current conflict combines criticism of Iranian military actions with calls for restraint by all parties and renewed diplomatic negotiations.
The United Kingdom demonstrates a different position because of its close military and intelligence relationship with the United States as well as its role within NATO. British policy typically aligns more closely with Washington’s strategic approach, regarding regional security and deterrence against Iran. However, British officials often emphasize the need to avoid uncontrolled escalation and to maintain channels for diplomatic dialogue.
In general, three core strategic priorities shape policy responses to the conflict. First, Western governments seek to protect regional allies and maintain the credibility of alliance systems such as NATO. Second, they aim to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or significantly expanding its missile capabilities. Third, they attempt to avoid a broader regional war that could disrupt global energy markets, threaten international trade routes, and create humanitarian crises across the Middle East.
