Israel-US, Iran and the Global Chessboard: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Who Gains

BY NONYE MOSES

For many Nigerians, the escalating confrontation involving Israel, Iran, and the United States may appear like another distant geopolitical crisis unfolding far from West Africa. The missiles are flying thousands of kilometres away.

The diplomatic statements are coming from capitals far removed from Lagos or Abuja. Yet history shows that tensions in the Middle East rarely stay confined to the region. The reason lies largely in the global energy system.

A significant portion of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway linking the oil-producing Gulf region to global markets. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, roughly one-fifth of global petroleum consumption travels through that corridor.

When tensions rise around such a strategic location, the effects can ripple through energy prices, shipping routes and financial markets worldwide.

But beyond the economic implications lies a deeper strategic question. When the military and diplomatic moves of each side are examined closely, who actually holds the upper hand in the unfolding confrontation?

The answer depends on how power is being exercised in the conflict.

Where Israel and the United States Hold the Edge

From a conventional military standpoint, the balance of power strongly favours Israel and the United States.

Israel maintains one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the Middle East. Its air force operates sophisticated fighter aircraft supported by extensive intelligence capabilities and layered missile defence systems designed to intercept incoming threats.

The involvement of the United States significantly expands that advantage. The United States possesses the world’s most powerful military and has long been Israel’s most important strategic ally, providing advanced weapons systems, intelligence cooperation and diplomatic support.

Together, this alliance has the capacity to project military power with remarkable precision. Long-range strike capabilities, satellite surveillance and cyber operations allow them to identify and target threats quickly.

From a technological and conventional military perspective, this gives the Israel–U.S. partnership a clear advantage on the battlefield.

However, military superiority does not automatically translate into strategic control.

Iran’s Strategy: Geography, Influence and Asymmetric Pressure

Iran approaches the confrontation from a fundamentally different strategic position.

Rather than attempting to match the military power of Israel and the United States directly, Iran relies on a combination of regional influence, geographic advantage and asymmetric tactics.

Over several decades, Iran has built networks of relationships with various political and armed groups across parts of the Middle East. These relationships allow it to exert influence beyond its own borders and complicate the strategic calculations of its adversaries.

Analysts at the Council on Foreign Relations have frequently described Iran’s regional strategy as one that spreads pressure across multiple fronts rather than concentrating it in a direct military confrontation.

Geography further strengthens this approach with Iran sitting along the northern coastline of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most sensitive shipping corridors in the global energy market. Because so much oil flows through that narrow passage, even the possibility of disruption can affect global energy prices.

This geographic position provides Iran with strategic leverage that extends far beyond its conventional military capabilities.

Iran’s Diplomatic Demands and the Strategy of a Long War

Another layer of the conflict can be seen in the diplomatic positions taken by Iran.

Iranian officials have outlined several conditions before any serious ceasefire negotiations could take place, including security guarantees against future attacks and recognition of Iran’s rights under international agreements.

At first glance, such conditions appear difficult for Israel or the United States to accept.

For that reason, some analysts interpret these demands not only as negotiation terms but also as part of a broader strategic approach.

Iran’s military thinking has long emphasized endurance rather than rapid victory. The country’s strategy assumes that while it cannot defeat stronger military powers quickly, it can increase the political and economic costs of prolonged confrontation.

If negotiations stall and tensions persist, time itself begins to play a role in the conflict.

A longer confrontation forces opponents to maintain costly military deployments, manage rising political pressure at home and navigate disruptions to global markets.

In this framework, extending the conflict can sometimes serve Iran’s strategic interests.

Why the Israel–U.S. Alliance May Prefer a Shorter Conflict

If Iran benefits from endurance, the strategic incentives for Israel and the United States are somewhat different.

Advanced militaries often seek decisive outcomes rather than prolonged confrontations. Sustained military operations require significant financial resources and can generate domestic political debates about the costs of foreign conflicts.

In democratic societies, long wars often create pressure from voters, lawmakers and economic stakeholders concerned about rising expenditures and geopolitical instability.

For this reason, the Israel–U.S. alliance may have stronger incentives to resolve confrontations quickly rather than allowing them to drag on indefinitely.

This difference in strategic preferences creates an important dynamic within the conflict.

While one side may favour rapid resolution, the other may benefit from stretching the confrontation over time.

Structural Weaknesses on Both Sides

Despite their respective strengths, both sides also face significant limitations.

For Israel and the United States, prolonged military engagement can strain political support and economic resources, particularly if the conflict expands into a wider regional crisis.

For Iran, the most serious challenge remains economic pressure. Years of international sanctions have placed heavy strain on its economy, restricting access to global financial systems and limiting economic growth.

These constraints on both sides help explain why the confrontation often unfolds through calculated actions rather than escalating immediately into full-scale war.

Each side is attempting to gain leverage without triggering consequences that could spiral beyond control.

The Countries Quietly Benefiting

While the nations directly involved face the risks of confrontation, other countries are adjusting their strategies in ways that could bring economic or geopolitical advantages.

One of the most notable examples is China. As the world’s largest energy importer, China can sometimes secure favourable energy deals when geopolitical tensions disrupt traditional trading patterns.

Another country watching developments closely is India. India relies heavily on imported oil and has historically taken advantage of discounted supplies during periods of geopolitical tension. At the same time, India maintains diplomatic relationships with Israel, Iran and the United States, allowing it to navigate the crisis without direct involvement.

Meanwhile, Russia could benefit if rising geopolitical tensions push global oil prices higher. As a major energy exporter, higher prices often translate into increased revenue.

These examples highlight a familiar pattern in international politics. While conflicts impose heavy costs on some nations, they can also create economic or strategic opportunities for others.

A Strategic Contest with Global Consequences

The confrontation involving Israel, Iran and the United States illustrates how modern geopolitical conflicts operate across multiple dimensions.

Military power, geographic positioning, diplomatic strategy and global energy markets all shape the outcome.

Israel and the United States possess clear technological and military advantages.

Iran relies on geography, regional influence and strategic patience to counterbalance that power.

At the same time, countries outside the immediate conflict are adjusting their economic and diplomatic strategies, sometimes benefiting from the shifting geopolitical landscape.

In an interconnected global system, wars rarely affect only those who fight them. Their consequences travel through markets, alliances and supply chains, influencing decisions and outcomes far beyond the battlefield.

Understanding those wider dynamics helps explain why the unfolding confrontation matters not just in the Middle East, but across the global political and economic system.