The ongoing conflict in Iran is stirring debates across the political spectrum. Conservatives are split between those who view it as a betrayal of Donald Trump’s pledge to avoid new wars and those who see it as an essential showdown that has been delayed far too well. Progressives paint it as yet another Middle Eastern entanglement pushed by Israel. Anti-war libertarians label it as disguised regime change. The thing is, this is not a new war, it’s being going on since the Iranian revolution of 1978.

In fact, this war predates Trump by decades. Iran has been informally in a declared state of war against the USA and Israel for a long time. The attack on the US barracks in Lebanon was a HUGE deal. the destruction of a civilian airliner killing many Canadians among others was an act of war. So no, this is not a new war. This is just a stage of a war where people recognize it as a war from movies.

The slogan “Death to America” (in Persian: Marg bar Âmrikâ) was popularized by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, and became a core chant during the revolution.It emerged prominently in protests outside the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in late 1979, especially during the Iran Hostage Crisis starting November 4, 1979, when revolutionaries seized the embassy and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Crowds chanted “Death to America” repeatedly during that period and at related events.

The phrase was adopted widely in rallies, state media, murals, and official events from 1979 onward, symbolizing opposition to U.S. policies, influence, and what Iranian leaders called “arrogance” or imperialism (often framed as “death to American policies” rather than the American people, per later clarifications by leaders like Ali Khamenei in 2015).

Around the globe, from Brasilia to Beijing, from London to Karachi, the narrative persists: America is waging Israel’s battle.

This is a misconception. And it is crucial to correct it, because misunderstanding the core of this conflict leads to misinterpreting all that unfolds next.

This is not primarily a war for Israel’s benefit. Israel gains from it, serves as a strong and eager regional ally, but the driving force for America lies elsewhere. America is engaged in a far grander strategy, extending well beyond the Middle East. Suggestions that Israel wields undue sway or pulls the U.S. into unwanted conflicts veer into conspiracy territory.

In reality, two distinct conflicts are at play here.

One unfolds on the regional stage, where Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Gulf nations maneuver. This includes Iran’s proxy forces, its drones and ballistic missiles, its nuclear pursuits, and its support for Hezbollah and the Houthis. These elements define this localized struggle. Israel has long grasped this arena, as have the Saudis and all nearby players.

Yet a second, much vaster arena exists, dominated by the United States and China. Here, the pivotal issue of the coming three decades is being decided: Will the U.S.-led global order endure, or will China supplant it? Every U.S. foreign policy move, from shifting focus to Asia to trade tariffs to stances in the Pacific, is a play in this expansive game.

America’s involvement stems from concerns over China. More precisely, it aims to dismantle what has become China’s most vital outpost beyond East Asia.

For much of its adversarial history with the U.S., Iran remained confined to that regional board. It posed headaches as a destabilizer, funding terrorism, disrupting shipping, endangering U.S. allies, and keeping the Middle East costly and volatile.

However, it did not directly challenge U.S. global dominance. It was chiefly Israel’s challenge, the Gulf states’ issue, and only peripherally Washington’s.

That shifted when Iran committed one of the century’s gravest strategic errors.

Under pressure from prolonged U.S. sanctions and growing isolation, Iran sought China as its economic savior. The ties strengthened swiftly.

Now, about 90 percent of Iran’s crude oil exports head to China, refined in facilities immune to U.S. sanctions. This revenue funds roughly a quarter of Iran’s budget, much of which bolsters its military. Without Beijing, the regime could not sustain its security apparatus, subsidize essentials, or avert the internal unraveling its ideology has fought against for four decades.

In essence, Iran has rendered itself completely reliant on China.

China, meanwhile, acted not out of altruism but calculation. Discounted Iranian oil has enabled Beijing to amass a strategic petroleum reserve surpassing a billion barrels, sufficient to fuel its economy for about 100 days amid a naval blockade.

China’s primary weakness is the U.S. Navy’s capacity to disrupt its energy supplies, particularly at chokepoints like the Malacca Strait. Iranian oil, bypassing U.S. scrutiny, served as a key safeguard against this. (Venezuela’s oil played a similar role, in another U.S. effort aimed at curbing China.)

But energy was just one facet. China equipped Iran with weaponry targeting commercial and U.S. military targets.

In February, reports surfaced of an almost-completed agreement to provide Iran with supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles exceeding Mach 3 speeds, built to bypass Aegis defenses on U.S. carrier groups.

China supplanted Iranian government and military software with its own secure systems, fortifying against CIA and Mossad cyberattacks. Joint naval drills involving China, Russia, and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz grew routine, fostering operational synergy among the three fleets.

Iran adopted China’s BeiDou navigation over GPS. And it granted China access to the port at Jask, integrating into China’s “string of pearls” network in the Indian Ocean.

The overall image is of a Chinese forward position, central to its naval strategy, cyber initiatives, and Belt and Road economic influence, all situated at the gateway to global oil flows. Armed with tools to breach U.S. defenses and harm American personnel, it forms part of a framework designed to limit U.S. military options in any Taiwan-related clash.

Once Iran appeared this way, it transcended being just Israel’s concern and became America’s imperative.

The administration has found it challenging to articulate this, for reasons unclear.

On March 2, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that U.S. preemptive actions against Iran came because intelligence indicated an impending Israeli strike, and Washington sought to avert automatic Iranian reprisals on U.S. sites. He noted that Iran had pre-authorized commanders to hit American targets upon any regime assault.

Rubio stressed that the U.S. opted to neutralize Iran’s attack capabilities first, rather than endure strikes that could inflict greater harm on American forces.

This rationale is tough to accept outright. If the catalyst was an Israeli move, the U.S. could have urged Israel to hold off, as it has done multiple times before, most recently telling Israel to back off or hold fire during the June 2025 ceasefire negotiations and enforcement.

It also mismatches the conflict’s character. U.S. media indicates America, not Israel, selected the timing.

Credible reports say the CIA, not Mossad, located Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei at the Saturday gathering of Iranian military heads targeted by Israel, and Trump, not Benjamin Netanyahu, authorized the coordinated strike.

The Americans partnered with Israelis because that optimizes such a campaign.

A reliable, committed local partner ready to inflict damage and handle repercussions reduces U.S. costs and boosts success odds. Should America face direct conflict with China, it would likely expect Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea to fulfill analogous roles.

Yet U.S. operations have hit Iranian military sites unrelated to the Israel-Iran dynamic.

In the initial 24 hours, as per U.S. Central Command, American attacks targeted Iranian naval ships, submarines, ports, and anti-ship missile sites on the southern coast.

The port of Bandar Abbas, base for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, was struck. So was Jask, eyed by China as a lasting Indian Ocean naval hub. Isfahan and Tabriz, centers for ballistic missile and drone manufacturing, faced hits.

The objective, as U.S. officials declared, was not only to diminish arsenals but to obliterate the production infrastructure, preventing China from covertly reconstructing it over years.

President Trump framed the operation bluntly, naming Iranian assets like the navy and missile sites that could open a second front in a China war.

A telling aspect of this conflict is how Iran’s purported allies have responded. Russia inked a broad strategic pact with Iran last January. China has been its economic backer for years. But as strikes began, neither intervened.

Russian radars in Syria deactivated, transponders allegedly shut off to evade unintended American or Israeli fire. China released declarations. Neither defended Iran with force.

This extends beyond the present. China’s envisioned alternative global order, via BRICS, the Belt and Road, and partnerships showcasing viable substitutes to U.S.-dominated systems, hinges on Beijing’s reliability as a partner.

Governments from Central Asia to sub-Saharan Africa to Latin America now witness China abandoning its key Middle Eastern ally. This dents Chinese soft power irreparably, a U.S. triumph resonating for years, regardless of the Iran outcome.

Meanwhile, America has shown it possesses the resolve and means to act firmly when vital interests are at stake. Not Israel’s interests. Not vague liberal ideals. Pure American interests, assessed pragmatically.

This does not negate risks. Attacks on Saudi oil facilities, Houthi vows to seal the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, rising tensions in Lebanon: these pose genuine threats, with high costs for errors.

Iran, sensing its survival at risk, ignites multiple fronts to compel negotiations through inflicted pain. We must acknowledge the burdens on Israeli civilians.

From a Zionist viewpoint, however, this moment brings profound relief and even joy. For decades, the Iranian regime has loomed as an existential threat, vowing Israel’s destruction while arming proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas to encircle and terrorize the Jewish state. Eliminating Iran’s missile stockpiles, nuclear ambitions, and proxy networks directly enhances Israel’s security, allowing Jews, Israelis, and Zionists worldwide to breathe easier. Families in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem can sleep more soundly, knowing the shadow of Iranian ballistic missiles has dimmed. This bolsters the Zionist dream of a safe, thriving homeland for the Jewish people, free from constant peril.

Moreover, there is a deep historical resonance here. Over 2,500 years ago, Cyrus the Great, the Persian king, liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity, enabling their return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple. This act of benevolence created an enduring debt of gratitude in Jewish tradition. Today, by targeting the oppressive Islamist regime that has hijacked Persia, the U.S. and its allies are, in a sense, honoring that ancient bond. The real Persians, heirs to a rich civilization of tolerance and grandeur, deserve liberation from the mullahs’ tyranny. Freeing them would restore Persia’s true spirit, allowing it to flourish once more.

Yet none of this is the primary aim. The core objective remains countering China’s global ambitions through Iran’s entanglement. Still, for Zionists, these outcomes represent an extraordinary benefit, aligning historical justice with modern security gains.

The American approach hints at a nuanced form of regime change, distinct from past efforts under George W. Bush or neoconservatives.

Trump shows no interest in democratization or altering regimes unless they obstruct U.S. paths, as seen in Venezuela.

He pursues change in Iran because its foundational ideology is inherently anti-American, making it immovable from China’s sphere otherwise. He seeks not a democratic Iran, but one no longer hostile to America.

It bears repeating: Israel wages its own fight against Iran, directing strikes at threats like ballistic missile launchers aimed at the Jewish state.

Nonetheless, two parallel wars rage in Iran, on scales vastly different.

The optimal outcome could be a stable, U.S.-aligned Iran leaning toward democracy, a safer Gulf, a diminished Hezbollah fostering a steadier Lebanon, a more secure Israel, and a China less equipped to menace U.S. Pacific partners.

This involves no nation-building, no Marshall Plan, no democratic crusade like in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is pragmatic and focused.

So why not articulate it plainly, as Secretary Rubio has hesitated?

Perhaps to avoid provoking overt Chinese reactions. Offering adversaries a face-saving out is wise diplomacy. Yet this vagueness harms domestic understanding. The administration might benefit from clear explanations addressing Americans’ legitimate queries.

Grasping America’s true motivations for action now clarifies the entire conflict. Many debates fixate on the regional board. The real war plays out on the global one.