Behind the Security Rhetoric

The confrontation today between Israel, the United States and Iran is not merely a regional military flare-up. It reflects a deeper shift in the strategic framework: the destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—such as Natanz and Fordow—and the weakening of its proxy networks in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, not only a question of Israel’s security.

This is a systemic pre-emptive strike: clearing the ‘backyard’ before Washington relocates its entire military heft to the Indo-Pacific to confront China.

Begin Doctrine

Historically, Iran has been the sole country with the technological progress and regime stability capable of challenging Israel’s nuclear hegemony on a permanent basis. On the other hand, Israel has upheld the Begin Doctrine—the zero-tolerance principle towards nuclear adversaries in the region.

However, the dynamics of 2026 show a significant mutation. The approach that was once characterised by precision sabotage against the Osirak reactor in Iraq and the Al-Kibar facility in Syria has evolved into total destruction (total neutralisation). The targets are not limited to nuclear sites such as Natanz and Fordow, but also Iran’s uranium enrichment capability, reduced by 75% following the joint strike by the United States and Israel.

The strategy has evolved into comprehensive destruction of infrastructure, human resources, and the command-and-control systems that sustain those ambitions, such as the command ecosystem of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) that controls regional operations. The aim is broader than the nuclear issue alone.

Israel seeks to break what is called the ‘Ring of Fire’—Iran’s proxy network stretching from Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, to Shia militias in Iraq.

By breaking the network’s command and logistics connectivity, Israel wants to remove the threat of asymmetric warfare on its borders: cross-border rockets, drones, and proxy attacks that have long been instruments of persistent pressure.

In its strategic calculus, absolute security is achieved only when Iran no longer possesses nuclear capability or a proxy architecture capable of withstanding or retaliating indirectly.

Hegemony of the Petrodollar

Behind the rhetoric of democracy lies the motive of safeguarding the currency. Iran, together with Russia and China, has become a chief driver of global dedollarisation. The United States views strikes on Iran as a step to close the ‘exit’ from the Dollar monetary system. By crippling Iran, the United States sends a message to the world that any attempt to trade energy outside the Dollar will face fatal military risk.

Since the 1974 agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia, the majority of world oil trading has been conducted in dollars. By 2025, around 58% of global foreign exchange reserves were held in USD, and around 80% of international trade transactions—especially energy—used the dollar as an intermediary currency.

Foreign investors also hold more than US$7 trillion of U.S. government bonds, helping Washington finance its fiscal deficit and a military budget that hovers around US$900 billion per year. This is what is known as exorbitant privilege: the ability to finance global power because the world continues to need the dollar for energy and foreign exchange reserves.

However, in recent years, there have been efforts to reduce that dominance. China has pushed for yuan usage in energy trade and has developed alternative cross-border payment systems to SWIFT, while Russia and Iran have increased non-USD transactions following Western sanctions.

Iran sits at the heart of this dynamic. With exports of around 1–1.3 million barrels per day to China, mostly in non-USD arrangements, Tehran becomes a living laboratory for non-dollar energy experiments.

In this context, the term contagion risk becomes relevant: if one energy-exporting country successfully survives and even grows outside the dollar system, other countries—in Asia, Africa, or Latin America—could be urged to follow. Structural demand for the dollar would be eroded, slowly but systemically.

If this spread, global demand for the USD could be undermined. In strategic terms, maintaining stability in the Gulf—the region that supplies around 20% of the world’s oil via the Strait of Hormuz—is not only about security but also about preserving the foundation of the monetary system that underpins America’s global position.

Further still, the BRICS+ expansion—now including Iran and several large energy producers—accounts for more than 35% of global GDP (PPP basis) and more than 40% of the world’s population. This is not merely a political symbol; it is the embryo of an alternative financial ecosystem.

Energy Denial

This strategy aims to hold the ‘neck’ of the rival country’s economy, with target being China and Russia. By controlling the Strait of Hormuz and destroying Iran’s export capacity (and previously Venezuela’s), the United States effectively becomes the arbiter of who may obtain energy and at what price. This is a form of economic siege before open conflict begins.

China is the world’s largest energy importer. By crippling supply from Venezuela (already locked in) and now Iran, the United States effectively encircles China. Without cheap energy from the ‘Axis of Resistance’, Chinese manufacturing costs would rise, its export competitiveness would fall, and domestic stability would be threatened.

Russia needs Iran as a energy and logistics transit corridor towards the South (India and Southeast Asia) to avoid European blockades. Destroying Iran’s stability would lock Russia into remaining on the Northern continent. Attacks on Iran’s oil infrastructure (Bandar Abbas, Kharg Island). This causes Brent prices to surge to $120+ per barrel.

Price spikes are often seen as harming everyone, but in the Energy Denial view, this is an asymmetric US advantage, as the US is currently the largest oil and gas producer (shale). Higher prices actually benefit domestic US producers, while for China, which is a pure importer, the price of $120 is a ‘deadly tax’ on its economy.

The US is prepared to let the world endure inflation as long as the ‘China engine’