Oil, power and the politics of war

When the United States and Israel justify military strikes against Iran, the explanation presented to the world is familiar: the goal, they say, is to protect the Iranian people from an authoritarian regime. Yet the reality on the ground raises serious questions about whether humanitarian concern is truly the motivation behind the conflict. When bombs fall on civilian areas, schools, hospitals and residential neighbourhoods, the narrative of “liberation” becomes difficult to believe.
If the goal were genuinely to protect the Iranian population, civilian casualties would not be treated as collateral damage. Reports of attacks killing students in schools or striking densely populated areas undermine the claim that this war is about protecting ordinary people. Saving civilians cannot logically involve putting their lives at immediate risk. The contradiction reveals a deeper problem in the way wars are justified: humanitarian rhetoric often masks strategic interests.
The United States has repeatedly framed military interventions as efforts to defend democracy or liberate populations from oppressive governments. Yet history tells a different story. From Iraq to Yemen, Somalia and Venezuela, US foreign policy has often prioritised strategic and economic interests over humanitarian concerns. These interventions have frequently resulted in instability, destruction of infrastructure and civilian suffering rather than democratic transformation.
The war with Iran fits into this broader pattern. Iran sits in one of the most strategically important regions in the world for global energy markets. Tensions between the United States, Israel and Iran routinely send oil prices soaring and destabilise international markets. The Arabian Gulf, and especially the Strait of Hormuz, remains one of the most critical oil transit routes in the world, with roughly one-fifth of global oil supply passing through it. Any escalation in conflict immediately affects global energy flows and the economic interests tied to them.
This reality makes it difficult to ignore the role that oil and geopolitical dominance play in the confrontation. Wars in the Middle East have long been entangled with the control of energy resources and regional influence. Strategic positioning in the Gulf is not simply about security; it is also about maintaining leverage over global oil markets and the political systems connected to them.
Beyond energy interests, there is also a deeper regional dynamic tied to Israel’s long-term security strategy. For decades, Israeli governments have framed Iran as their most significant strategic threat. Some critics argue that weakening Iran serves a broader goal of maintaining Israeli military and political dominance in the region. The concept of a stronger, expanded Israeli sphere of influence, sometimes referred to by critics as “Greater Israel”, reflects fears that destabilising neighbouring states could shift regional power balances in Israel’s favour.
Whether or not one accepts that interpretation fully, it is clear that regional tensions between Israel and Iran are not simply about ideology. They are about power, territory and geopolitical competition. Iran’s alliances with regional actors, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to other proxy groups, have made it a central player in Middle Eastern politics. Weakening Iran could reshape the entire balance of power in the region.
The consequences of this confrontation are already being felt beyond Iran and Israel themselves. As tensions escalate, neighbouring Gulf countries are becoming targets of retaliation or collateral damage. Missile strikes and proxy attacks threaten to drag additional states into the conflict, creating the possibility of a much wider regional war.
This raises another troubling possibility: that escalation itself may serve strategic interests. A destabilised Middle East can create opportunities for external powers to expand influence, secure military presence and shape regional political outcomes. If the region becomes fragmented and weakened by prolonged conflict, it becomes easier for the United States and Israel to intervene politically, economically and militarily.
Meanwhile, the populations living in these regions bear the consequences. Civilians are the ones who suffer the most during war. Homes are destroyed, infrastructure collapses and entire generations grow up in environments defined by instability and violence. The rhetoric of liberation rarely matches the reality experienced by those living under the bombs.
At its core, the justification that war is necessary to “save people from authoritarian rule” collapses under scrutiny. If protecting civilians were truly the priority, diplomacy and international pressure would be the primary tools, not air strikes. Military intervention inevitably puts innocent lives at risk, regardless of its stated intentions.
If there is any lesson from decades of conflict in the region, it is that war rarely solves the problems it claims to address. Instead, it deepens them. And until global powers begin prioritising diplomacy over domination, the cycle of violence will continue, leaving civilians caught in the crossfire of ambitions that have little to do with their freedom.