_Iran-Us-Israel War — The Political Incentives, Escalation Logic, And the Global Economy That Can't Survive Peace_
*Hassan Saleem Awan*
`March 12, 2026`
https://x.com/hsawan/status/2032121293408219428?s=20
The United States carries approximately thirty-eight (38) trillion dollars in national debt, with global debt exceeding one hundred and ten (110) trillion dollars. This structural vulnerability is not sustainable. When the next major economic crisis arrives, and all indicators point to its imminence, the nations that control energy prices will determine who survives and who defaults.
Iran sits on the world's fourth-largest oil reserves and second-largest natural gas reserves. A controlled, submissive, or a fragmented Iran composed of weak, dependent statelets, constitutes Northern-controlled global energy leverage. Control of Iranian oil translates directly into control over which Global Southern nations can afford to service their dollar-denominated debt. This operates as energy independence, which the US already possesses, and as energy dominance functioning as a weapon in the coming debt liquidation.
The International Energy Agency projects global energy demand will increase by thirty percent (30%) by 2040, with virtually all growth originating from the Global South. Global Northern control of Global Southern energy resources ensures this growth serves Global Northern interests. Cheap energy for Northern consumers, continued dollar hegemony for Northern financial institutions, and permanent dependency for the Global Southern economies constitute the three (03) operational outcomes this control secures. No diplomatic agreement, ensuring peace, could deliver these outcomes. Only military victory, or the installation of a compliant client regime, could achieve the level of control required.
The war with Iran operates fundamentally as a war about China. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) represents the most significant challenge to Northern global hegemony since the decolonization movements of the twentieth (20Th) century. China has invested over one (01) trillion dollars in infrastructure projects across more than one hundred and forty (140) Southern nations, building ports, railways, pipelines, and digital networks that bypass Northern-controlled institutions.
Iran sits at the strategic crossroads of the BRI's overland corridors to Europe, the Caucasus, and South Asia. The China-Iran twenty-five (25) year strategic partnership, signed in 2021 and valued at approximately four hundred (400) billion dollars, guarantees Chinese access to Iranian oil, gas, and transport routes in exchange for Chinese investment in Iranian infrastructure. A fragmented Iran under US influence severs China's access to Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the Mediterranean.
The message to Beijing is, unambiguous, loud and clear. The Global North will not accept a multipolar world quietly. It will burn the entire region before ceding control of the Global South's development trajectory. No negotiation with Iran could achieve this strategic objective. The target is not Iran only. It was China's rise as well.
Every crisis is a ladder, and an opportunity. The defence contractors who fund American political campaigns and staff the revolving door of the Pentagon require permanent war to sustain their profit margins. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics have seen their stock prices rise on every crisis, with combined revenues exceeding two hundred and fifty (250) billion dollars annually. A war with Iran represents a multi-trillion-dollar revenue stream over years or decades.
The Tomahawk missiles launched in the first wave cost approximately two (02) million dollars each. The F-35 fighter jets cost over one hundred (100) million dollars each. The bombs, the bullets, the basing, the rebuilding, the permanent military presence translate into guaranteed returns for Northern shareholders. This reality can't be acknowledged, publicly and officially. However, it operates as the substrate upon which all other objectives rest. No solution provides this revenue stream. Only war delivers guaranteed returns.
Trump's 2018 withdrawal from the nuclear agreement (JCPOA) was predicated on the promise that he could negotiate a better deal. That promise has never been fulfilled. No new agreement exists. Iran's nuclear program is more advanced than it was when Trump took office. The very rationale for his signature foreign policy decision has been undermined by events.
A successful war that significantly degrades Iran's nuclear program and proxy capabilities would function as retrospective justification for his withdrawal. A negotiated settlement would leave Trump's decision exposed as the catastrophic error that experts warned it would be. Trump therefore possesses a personal, political stake in war that transcends any policy calculation.
Trump faces sinking poll numbers, legislative gridlock, economic headwinds, and the persistent shadow of the Epstein files. The war provides him with what domestic politics can't. A stage where he can act unilaterally, project strength, and secure media attention constitutes the war's domestic function. The war allows him to operate as the wartime president, not the president whose government efficiency initiative quietly faded away.
Congress voted down the war powers act. The courts are unlikely to intervene. The bureaucracy falls in line. The war gives Trump the experience of unconstrained power that domestic institutions deny him. This operates as a strategic calculation about re-election and as a psychological necessity.
Netanyahu has consistently described Iran as an existential threat to Israel. This framing is not merely rhetorical. It reflects the Israeli security establishment's firm belief that a nuclear-armed Iran, combined with Iran's missile capabilities and proxy networks, could fundamentally endanger the Zionist state's survival.
But the existential threat framing also serves multiple functions within Israeli domestic politics. It justifies extraordinary measures, unifies the political base, and communicates to the international community that Israel's actions are defensive. It also makes negotiation appear as appeasement. No Israeli leader can be seen as soft on existential threats and survive politically.
Netanyahu has described the war as a decisive stage which he called the "War of Armageddon", affirming that it intends to "reshape" the geopolitical reality in the Middle East. This reshaping includes objectives that no negotiation could achieve.
A fragmented Iran would include an independent Iranian Kurdistan, connecting to Iraqi Kurdistan and potentially to Syrian Kurdish regions. A contiguous Kurdish entity under Israeli influence would provide a permanent land buffer between Iran and Turkey, give Israel a direct overland route to energy resources, create a non-Arab, non-Persian ally in the heart of the Middle East, and permanently weaken six (06) Global Southern nations simultaneously. Iran, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan constitute the six (06) states this arrangement permanently weakens.
Israel needs to maintain relations with Turkey, but underlying objectives of war with Iran represent significant strategic prizes. The balkanization of Global Southern states into smaller, weaker entities has been a consistent Northern strategy since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. War was the only path to achieving it.
Netanyahu faces existential threats of his own. A criminal trial that could end his career and send him to prison, a coalition deadline at the end of March 2026, a Haredi draft crisis that could collapse his government, and an opposition war room with twenty-five thousand volunteers preparing for the next election constitute the four (06) structural threats to his political survival.
The war provides him with what domestic politics can't. A national unity imperative that suspends coalition politics, a justification for delaying his trial, and a path to an early election in June 2026 where he can campaign as a victorious wartime leader rather than a defendant constitute the war's domestic function. Trump's planned May visit to receive the Israel Prize will provide the ultimate endorsement. No negotiated settlement could deliver these political benefits. Only war can.
The October 7, 2023, security failure was the worst in Israel's history. Netanyahu's legacy is tainted by it. The war with Iran offers the possibility of redemption through victory. It operates as Netanyahu's desperation dressed as strategy.
The war with Iran is a regional conflagration that touches every state from the Mediterranean to the Indus. Each of these states possesses its own reasons for wanting war or being unable to prevent it.
Iraq cannot control the Iran-backed militias operating from its soil. Turkey cannot prevent the Kurdish state that may emerge from Iranian fragmentation. Saudi Arabia cannot protect its oil infrastructure from Iranian retaliation. The Gulf states cannot refuse US basing requests. Pakistan cannot secure its Balochistan border. Afghanistan cannot prevent its territory from becoming a sanctuary. The war happens because the entire regional system is structured to produce it.
Israel's strategy of regional escalation is not irrational escalation. It is calculated design. Understanding "why" requires examining Israel's strategic position and objectives.
Iran's power in the region is not primarily military. It is relational. The "Axis of Resistance" constitutes a networked infrastructure of influence that cannot be destroyed by striking Iran alone. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine, the Houthis in Yemen, and Shia militias in Iraq and Syria form this networked infrastructure.
Hezbollah alone possesses an estimated one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) rockets and missiles, many capable of reaching deep into Israeli territory. Hamas, despite damage from the Gaza war, retains significant capabilities. Its come back has left many surprised. The Houthis have demonstrated the ability to disrupt international shipping. Iraqi militias have conducted nearly one hundred (100) attacks on US bases in the first days of the war.
To destroy this network, Israel must engage it directly. Striking Hezbollah in Lebanon, targeting Houthi infrastructure in Yemen, and responding to Iraqi militia attacks are not distractions from the main campaign. They are the main campaign. The war with Iran is the centre of gravity, but the network constitutes the threat.
A fragmented Iran requires independent Kurdish, Baloch, Azerbaijani, and Arab statelets. These cannot emerge spontaneously. They require external support, protection, and recognition. Israel creates conditions in which these fragmentations become possible by drawing neighbouring states into the conflict.
Turkish involvement, whether direct or indirect, creates opportunities for Kurdish consolidation. Iraqi instability enables Kurdish autonomy. Syrian chaos permits Kurdish expansion. The wider the war spreads, the more opportunities for fragmentation emerge.
Israel's long-term energy security depends on access to resources and transport routes that currently lie beyond its control. A direct overland route through Kurdish territory to Iraqi and Iranian oil fields would transform Israel's strategic position. This requires not merely Iranian fragmentation but regional realignment that only war can produce.
Gulf states have long attempted to hedge between Washington and Tehran, maintaining relations with both while committing fully to neither. Israel draws them into the conflict — whether through Iranian retaliation or false‑flag operations — forcing them to choose sides. Once they have suffered Iranian attacks, they cannot return to neutrality. Their alignment with the US and Israel becomes permanent.
For Israel, Hezbollah is not a proxy problem. It is an existential threat positioned on its northern border. The New York Times reports that Israel has been preparing for a major ground offensive in Lebanon for months. The war with Iran provides the cover and the context for this operation. Israel frames Hezbollah as an Iranian proxy, allowing it to present the offensive as part of the broader campaign rather than a separate war.
The ARAMCO false-flag operation has established the template. Subsequent operations have followed the same pattern. The Islamic Resistance in Iraq's attacks on US bases serve multiple purposes. They justify US retaliation, which deepens Iraqi involvement. They create pressure on the Iraqi government to expel US forces, which would trigger further escalation. They provide Israel with cover for its own operations in the region.
The Houthis have not yet fully committed to the conflict, with analysts suggesting Tehran may be holding them in reserve or that Houthi leaders may be hedging their bets in case the Iranian regime collapses. Israel has an interest in forcing their hand. An attack attributed to the Houthis, whether real or staged, would draw Saudi Arabia and the UAE more deeply into the conflict.
Turkey's position as a NATO ally with independent interests makes it the most complex variable in the equation. A false-flag operation attributed to Kurdish groups operating from Turkish territory could serve multiple purposes. Weakening Turkey's international position, justifying Israeli operations in Kurdish regions, and creating conditions for Kurdish consolidation constitute the three (03) strategic outcomes such an operation could produce.
Expanding the war carries significant risks. Each new front drains military resources, creates additional sources of opposition, and increases the chance of miscalculation. But for Israel, the risks of not expanding are greater.
A limited war that leaves Iran's nuclear infrastructure damaged but its proxy network intact is a postponement, not a victory. Israel's objective is not to delay the threat but to eliminate it. That requires regional transformation that only widespread conflict can achieve.
The human cost of this revenue stream is borne entirely by the Global South. More than a million children of Iraq, the hundreds of thousands dead in Afghanistan, the uncounted victims of drone strikes in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan are not line items on Northern balance sheets. They are the price of Northern prosperity.
Both Israel and the US share a core assessment that the Islamic regime in Iran is uniquely vulnerable, dealing with severe economic crisis, protest fallout, and damaged defences. Both share the objective of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, though they prioritize this goal differently. Both benefit militarily from close coordination. Both see the war as serving domestic political purposes in their respective 2026 election cycles.
But their ultimate destinations are not identical. The United States is fighting to preserve its global hegemony. Israel is fighting to secure its regional dominance within that system. In the short term, these objectives align. In the long term, they may diverge as the US grows increasingly exhausted and Israel emerges as the primary beneficiary of American military action.
The war will not end with Iran. It is reshaping the entire region.
Iraq will become a permanent battlefield, its government paralyzed between US forces and Iran-backed militias. Turkey will face a Kurdish state on its southern border, created and protected by the same powers that call it an ally. Saudi Arabia will find its oil infrastructure permanently vulnerable and its hedging strategy impossible. The Gulf states will become permanent basing platforms, their sovereignty conditional on compliance. Pakistan will face a Baloch insurgency strengthened by Iranian fragmentation. Afghanistan will become a sanctuary for forces aligned with both sides.
The map being drawn stretches from the Mediterranean to the Indus. Iran in pieces. Pakistan bisected. Turkey truncated. The Gulf states compliant. India ascendant but encumbered. Afghanistan a black hole. Central Asia a tinderbox.
The human cost of war is not the aberrations. They are the proof that the system works exactly as designed. To them will be added the dead of Iran, and the dead of Iran's neighbours, and the dead of the generations that follow, all sacrificed on the altar of Northern supremacy.
The war with Iran is not about Iran. It never was. Iran is the terrain on which larger games are being played. Games of debt, of hegemony, of succession, of survival constitute the actual stakes. The official objectives are not lies. They are truths stripped of context, designed for Northern domestic consumption and international legitimation. The real objectives operate at the level of civilizational strategy, economic warfare, and hegemonic competition within the Global North versus Global South paradigm.
The United States seeks to liquidate its debt through energy dominance, signal China that the Southern challenge to Northern hegemony will not be tolerated, and secure revenue streams for the military industrial complex. Israel seeks to eliminate the most powerful Southern challenger to the Northern-imposed order, reshape the regional map through balkanization, and secure its position as the dominant power in a fragmenting region.
Their alliance is real and their military cooperation is deep. The war with Iran will serve both their purposes, but it will serve them differently. What remains constant is the cost to the Global South. The dead, the displaced, the indebted, the dependent constitute this constant cost.
