{"id":6199,"date":"2026-02-24T22:30:49","date_gmt":"2026-02-24T22:30:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/?p=6199"},"modified":"2026-02-25T18:27:09","modified_gmt":"2026-02-25T18:27:09","slug":"can-the-chaotic-state-of-the-us-israel-rivalry-with-iran-only-be-broken-through-war","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/?p=6199&lang=en","title":{"rendered":"“Can the chaotic state of the US-Israel rivalry with Iran only be broken through war?”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

“Can the chaotic state of the US-Israel rivalry with Iran only be broken through war?”<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

“ABD+\u0130srail ile \u0130ran Aras\u0131ndaki Oyundaki Kaotik Durum Sadece Sava\u015fla m\u0131 A\u015f\u0131labilir?”<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Yazar: \u015eanghay Uluslararas\u0131 Ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar \u00dcniversitesi, Orta Do\u011fu Enstit\u00fcs\u00fc’nden Profes\u00f6r Liu Zhongmin<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Son zamanlarda, ABD ve \u0130ran aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkiler, artan \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma ve m\u00fczakerelerdeki s\u00fcregelen \u00e7\u0131kmaz\u0131n bir arada bulundu\u011fu al\u0131\u015f\u0131lmad\u0131k derecede garip bir \u00f6zellik g\u00f6steriyor. Bu durum, sava\u015f riski artmaya devam ederken, iki taraf\u0131n da g\u00fcven eksikli\u011fi ve farkl\u0131l\u0131klarla dolu s\u0131k\u0131c\u0131 m\u00fczakerelere devam etmesinde en belirgin \u015fekilde g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0130ki taraf aras\u0131ndaki karma\u015f\u0131k tarih ve mevcut ili\u015fkiler g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, bu \u00e7\u0131kmaz\u0131n ancak sava\u015fla k\u0131r\u0131labilece\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclmektedir. Bununla birlikte, her iki taraf da b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7ekli sava\u015f ve \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmadan ka\u00e7\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in, \u00e7\u0131kmaz sadece ge\u00e7ici olarak k\u0131r\u0131lacak ve sava\u015f\u0131n sonucuna ba\u011fl\u0131 olarak k\u0131r\u0131lgan bir denge olu\u015facak, bu da iki taraf aras\u0131nda yeni bir rekabet turuna yol a\u00e7acakt\u0131r. Ancak, sava\u015f ve \u00e7at\u0131\u015fman\u0131n geli\u015fimi her iki taraf\u0131n da kontrol kapasitesini a\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ve \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma kontrolden \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, Orta Do\u011fu daha b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7ekli, uzun vadeli bir karga\u015fa ve d\u00fczensizli\u011fe s\u00fcr\u00fcklenecektir. Bu ayn\u0131 zamanda ABD taraf\u0131ndan ba\u015flat\u0131lan K\u00f6rfez Sava\u015f\u0131, Afganistan Sava\u015f\u0131 ve Irak Sava\u015f\u0131’n\u0131n da g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi tarihsel derstir: iki taraf aras\u0131ndaki sava\u015f sadece eski d\u00fczeni y\u0131k\u0131p ortadan kald\u0131rabilir, ancak yeni, bar\u0131\u015f\u00e7\u0131l ve istikrarl\u0131 bir d\u00fczen kurmak zordur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author:  Professor Liu Zhongmin of the Middle East Institute of Shanghai International Studies University published a commentary on The Paper titled “Can the Chaotic State of the US-Israel-Iran Game Only Be Broken Through War?”<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recently, relations between the United States and Iran have fallen into an unusually strange state, with escalating confrontation and ongoing deadlock in negotiations coexisting. This is most evident in the fact that while the risk of war continues to rise, the two sides are still engaged in tedious negotiations that lack trust and are riddled with differences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the complex history and current state of relations between the two sides, this stalemate may only be broken through war. However, since both sides are avoiding large-scale war and conflict, the deadlock will only be temporarily broken, and a fragile balance will be formed based on the outcome of the war, leading to a new round of competition between the two sides. However, once the development of war and conflict exceeds the control capabilities of both sides and spirals out of control, the Middle East will fall into larger-scale, long-term turmoil and disorder. This is also the historical lesson of the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War launched by the United States: war can only break and bury the old order, but it is difficult to create a new, peaceful, and stable order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The chaotic state of the US-Israel-Iran rivalry<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the one hand, the confrontation, struggle, and game between the US and Iran in the political, military, and diplomatic spheres are escalating. Since the outbreak of popular protests in Iran at the end of 2025, the US and Iran have been engaged in an escalating struggle in the areas of military confrontation and cognitive warfare. The US has continuously raised the level of its threats against Iran militarily and in terms of public opinion, while Iran, while quelling domestic unrest, has also waged a tit-for-tat struggle against the US militarily and in terms of public opinion. Against this backdrop, the US has continuously increased its military presence in the Middle East through military deployments, and Iran has responded to US deterrence by showcasing new weapons, conducting military exercises, and temporarily closing the Strait of Hormuz. The verbal battles between the two sides in the fields of public opinion and cognitive warfare are also escalating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, Israel has been lobbying and even coercing the United States to take military action against Iran, thus becoming a driving force behind the escalating confrontation between the US and Iran. In short, the relationship between the US, Israel, and Iran is showing a dangerous trend of spiraling confrontation and constantly approaching war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, negotiations between the US and Iran continued, with both sides expressing their commitment to reaching an agreement through talks, but no substantial progress was made. On February 6th and February 17th, the US and Iran held two rounds of indirect negotiations in Muscat, Oman, and Geneva, Switzerland, respectively. After both rounds of talks, both the US and Iran stated that progress had been made and agreed to continue contact. However, judging from public statements, the two sides remain unwilling to compromise on their core differences. The US demands that Iran completely abandon uranium enrichment, while also seeking to limit the range of Iranian ballistic missiles and demanding that Iran cease its support for regional proxies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Iranian government stated that it does not seek to possess nuclear weapons, is willing to accept any form of inspection, and hopes to reach a fair and just agreement to lift sanctions against Iran. However, it has two red lines: the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy is inalienable, and missile capabilities are not negotiable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This shows that the negotiations between the US and Iran have fundamental differences that are difficult to resolve. The reasons are that the two sides have a serious lack of trust as the conflict and confrontation continue to escalate, and more importantly, the ideological and geopolitical contradictions that have accumulated between them over a long period of time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To some extent, the crux of the complex dilemma in the relationship between the United States, Israel, and Iran\u2014a state of war versus peace\u2014lies in whether the two sides choose to rebuild the fragile balance or completely shatter it through a decisive confrontation. Currently, neither the US nor Iran has abandoned its efforts to achieve a temporary balance through negotiations, while both are simultaneously preparing for a breakdown in negotiations that could lead to conflict or even war. This is the root cause of the current stalemate in US-Iran relations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Trump administration sought to achieve a historic breakthrough on Iran, surpassing its predecessors, but also found itself in a profound dilemma: unable to push for negotiations and hesitant to wage war. From Iran’s perspective, it hoped to improve its international environment through negotiations, thereby buying time to escape its increasingly severe internal and external predicaments. However, it also had red lines it couldn’t relinquish based on its regime’s legitimacy and national dignity, and was forced to prepare militaryly and politically for war should negotiations break down. Israel, on the other hand, sought to force the United States to completely remove all of Iran’s teeth that could threaten Israel and to weaken and strike Iran to the greatest extent possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Demolishing the old is easy, but establishing the new is difficult \u2013 this is the historical curse of Middle Eastern politics.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The root cause of the dilemma in US-Israel-Iran relations lies in the breakdown of the fragile balance that had long existed between the two sides since the new round of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On the one hand, Iran and its “axis of resistance” have been severely weakened, and the US and Israel are putting increasing pressure on Iran. As Iran’s red lines are constantly being crossed, the US and Israel’s ambitions to weaken, attack, and even overthrow Iran are growing. On the other hand, Iran is not so weak that the US and Israel can easily defeat it completely and force it into submission. Iran still possesses the political resilience to maintain regime stability domestically and the military capability to respond to challenges from the US and Israel internationally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In short, the fundamental dilemma of US-Iran policy has not changed since the Cold War: barring a full-scale war against Iran, US deterrence, sanctions, and infiltration are ineffective in overthrowing the Iranian regime. Currently, while the weakening of Iran and the “axis of resistance” benefits the US and Israel, the US still lacks the capability to decisively overthrow the Iranian regime. Even if the US chooses to launch a military strike or war against Iran, the methods, scale, targets, and consequences of its actions remain a major challenge for Trump. Prioritizing cost-benefit maximization, Trump is deeply concerned about repeating the mistakes of previous US presidents in the Middle East that he criticizes\u2014getting bogged down in excessive, costly, fruitless, and inescapable wars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, although Trump is outspoken on the Iran issue, he is exceptionally cautious in policy-making and action. This is why, while negotiating with Iran, Trump has been conducting thorough policy discussions and military deployments, but has not rashly resorted to force.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The root causes of the stalemate between the US, Israel, and Iran, which is caught in a dilemma between war and peace, are both short-term and long-term factors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the short term, the reason lies in the fact that the differences between the two sides in the negotiations are too serious, and even compromise is difficult to achieve. The three rigid negotiating demands put forward by the United States\u2014zeroing out Iran’s nuclear capabilities, limiting its missile range, and ceasing support for regional proxies\u2014are aimed at forcing Iran to accept a humiliating agreement that fully reflects the will of the United States and Israel, given that Iran is facing internal and external troubles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iran’s negotiating demands are essentially centered around the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which is precisely why Trump resolutely opposed it and withdrew from the agreement. Therefore, Trump’s goal is to achieve landmark results that surpass the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. From Iran’s perspective, it must defend its bottom line to maintain its survival and dignity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a long time, Iran has paid a huge price for the right and capability to peacefully use nuclear energy, and it is clearly impossible for it to accept the requirement of zeroing out its nuclear capabilities; missile capabilities are a limited means, or even the only means, of maintaining national security under the confrontation structure between the US and Israel and Iran; publicly abandoning support for regional proxies is related to its national dignity and ideology, and it is difficult to completely abandon them under the premise of a lack of security trust between the US and Israel and Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, the contradictions between the US and Israel over Iran’s nuclear capabilities, missile range, and proxy issues are merely external manifestations of their long-standing and fundamental contradictions. From a historical and contemporary perspective, the Iranian issue is not simply about Iran’s nuclear program, but rather refers to the comprehensive confrontation, struggle, and game between the two sides in the political, diplomatic, military, and security fields since the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution, encompassing ideology, social systems, geopolitics, and especially the Iranian nuclear issue. Consequently, the US has long pursued a policy of containment against Iran, and the contradictions and confrontations between the two sides became even more acute after the 2003 Iranian nuclear crisis, which even became a global security crisis. The Bush administration further intensified its containment, encirclement, and sanctions against Iran. It wasn’t until the Obama era that the US, due to the need for strategic retrenchment in the Middle East, sought to resolve the Iranian issue through contact and negotiation, culminating in the Iran nuclear deal in 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the Iran nuclear deal failed to resolve the fundamental contradictions between the US and Iran. These contradictions intensified again after Trump withdrew from the deal and launched a maximum pressure campaign against Iran. They were further amplified by US and Israeli strikes against Iran and the al-Nusra Front during the new round of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leading to the current tense standoff. Therefore, only by resolving the comprehensive confrontation between the US and Iran can the Iranian nuclear issue be resolved. Without addressing this comprehensive confrontation, it will be difficult for the two sides to build trust, making negotiations on the Iranian nuclear issue extremely challenging.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Currently, the escalating military confrontation between the United States and Iran, coupled with the stalemate in negotiations, is increasing the likelihood of a military conflict or even a localized war, and bringing it ever closer. In summary, the evolution of the war situation may present two possible scenarios, or even two pivotal scenarios:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first possibility is a controlled, localized conflict that would release some of the tensions, resulting in losses on both sides, but with Iran paying a relatively higher price. A more likely scenario is that the United States and Israel would launch airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, military targets, administrative institutions, and Revolutionary Guard, and even target and eliminate higher-ranking Iranian officials. This would be larger in scale and intensity than the “12-Day War” in 2025, but would still be unlikely to overthrow the Iranian regime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Iran will continue to attack Israeli territory and US military bases in the Middle East, but the intensity and scope will likely increase, potentially even escalating the conflict to the Gulf and temporarily blocking the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict could end with both sides suffering losses and reaching a tacit understanding, under US leadership, with both sides declaring victory. This conflict could, to some extent, be an intensified version of the “12-Day War,” but it wouldn’t spiral out of control; instead, both sides would return to a new phase of accumulating contradictions and strategic maneuvering. This could also be very similar to the 1991 Gulf War launched by the US against Iraq, but it would leave behind many post-war problems and new conflicts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second scenario involves factors emerging within a localized war that could cause it to spiral out of control, leading to a large-scale, protracted conflict that could spill over into the Gulf region and the entire Middle East, creating new contradictions and problems. The specific circumstances leading to this are difficult to predict, but essentially, it involves one side suffering blows and harm exceeding its tolerance limit, escalating and expanding the conflict, fundamentally altering its nature and content, resulting in a large-scale, protracted war, and giving rise to numerous problems such as conflict spillover, post-war reconstruction, the proliferation of extremist groups, energy crises, and the decline of hegemony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Middle East is a stage for frequent wars, a graveyard of imperial hegemony, and a wellspring of historical lessons. European powers like Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union (Russia) have all waged wars in the Middle East, reaping numerous defeats and lessons. Currently, despite the escalating tensions between the US and Iran, the initiative for war and peace essentially rests in the hands of the United States, especially Trump. It is hoped that Trump can learn from the lessons of imperialism, particularly his own past, and promptly apply the brakes to the American war machine. This would be a blessing for both the Middle East and the United States.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Can the chaotic state of the US-Israel rivalry with Iran only be broken through war?” “ABD+\u0130srail ile \u0130ran Aras\u0131ndaki Oyundaki Kaotik Durum Sadece Sava\u015fla m\u0131 A\u015f\u0131labilir?” Yazar: \u015eanghay Uluslararas\u0131 Ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar \u00dcniversitesi, Orta Do\u011fu Enstit\u00fcs\u00fc’nden Profes\u00f6r Liu Zhongmin Son zamanlarda, ABD ve \u0130ran aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkiler, artan \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma ve m\u00fczakerelerdeki s\u00fcregelen \u00e7\u0131kmaz\u0131n bir arada bulundu\u011fu al\u0131\u015f\u0131lmad\u0131k derecede […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,1,32],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-english-en","category-uncategorized","category-world-en"],"blocksy_meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6199"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6199\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6206,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6199\/revisions\/6206"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/marksizm.org.tr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}