Merchants of rumors and conspiracy theorists, much like merchants of war, feed off people’s fears and anxieties.
With the first shot fired in the conflict, a wave of theories emerged. The most prominent being that the war is nothing more than a US strategic plan against China, aimed at controlling Gulf oil and its maritime routes. Another suggests that Trump dragged the region into a devastating war and will eventually walk away, leaving Gulf states to face their fate. Others argue that Netanyahu pulled Trump into the conflict and that both will ultimately flee the confrontation. A third theory claims the war was launched to grant Israel a regional role and eliminate the Palestinian cause.
All of these can be debated, and the truth is not definitive. But why not consider that the reality may be simpler?
The war against Iran is the result of prolonged tensions and proxy conflicts. It is not surprising that matters eventually escalated into direct war, whether to change the regime or to limit its capabilities.
There are also many contradictory arguments among theorists. For decades, they spoke of alleged “Israeli-Iranian coordination.” This is a naive claim that today’s war disproves, as it has revealed the depth of hostility between the two states. Israel is striking Iran more heavily than it has in all its Arab wars combined.
For years, skepticism or denial also raised the question: Why all this hostility if the United States never attacks Iran? Today, Washington is doing exactly that, so why the surprise?
One of the most widespread theories, especially among some intellectual circles, is that this war is a chapter in the US-China rivalry, with Washington seeking to control energy resources and maritime routes to deny Beijing dominance.
This theory stems from political science frameworks and does not contradict the broader dynamics of great power competition. Its only flaw is that the United States already controls these routes in the oceans and the Gulf, with military bases on land and at sea. It also dominates the oil industry and its movement across the supply chain, from companies to spare parts and insurance. Moreover, it controls the currency used in oil transactions, most of which are conducted in dollars, a more powerful tool than an aircraft carrier.
China, by contrast, has no comparable bases, fleets, or production and transport companies, and only a small portion of oil is traded in yuan. US dominance in these regions and vital sectors is already near total, so why would it wage a war to control what it already controls? The war with Iran has multiple causes and one main objective. The most important driver is the growing threat from Tehran – its nuclear ambitions, missiles, and cross-border militias – which Washington believes must be contained. The stated goal is to curb the threat posed by Iran’s regime.
The regime’s threat to Israel is significant, but its threat to Gulf states and the broader Arab East is even greater. Israel possesses deterrence capabilities far exceeding those of Arab states, most notably a nuclear umbrella that could threaten to erase Iran if the danger becomes existential. Israel also enjoys US protection. What many overlook is that this makes Gulf countries the primary beneficiaries of weakening Iran’s power, as they lack strategic deterrence and do not have guaranteed US protection.
Does Washington want to control energy sources and maritime routes against its rival China? Yes, but not in a simplistic sense. Competition is more like a chess game played across the global map.
It is better to interpret such statements within their proper context when talk arises of plans to dominate energy sources and shipping lanes.
US-China competition is indeed strong in Asia and Africa, but that is separate from the serious threats created by Iran’s regime in the region and globally – threats that Washington believes have reached a point requiring containment and deterrence.
The rivalry between the two powers is intense over resources, markets, and technology, but this does not necessarily mean entering into semi-direct wars.
In fact, contrary to that notion, during the current oil shock Washington lifted restrictions and facilitated China’s purchase of Iranian and Russian oil to prevent global economic collapse. Trump also urged China to send forces to help protect oil tankers, aiming to counter Tehran’s efforts to raise the global cost of the war. Much of US competition with China is strategic hedging; the United States remains the primary power securing global energy routes. Ironically, China benefits from this protection while also being the most harmed by Iran’s military activities, which have disrupted the flow of Gulf and Iraqi oil and gas and targeted related infrastructure.
The cost to China is high because it is the world’s largest energy importer, while the United States is now the largest producer of oil and gas.
As for why the war is happening, Washington says it seeks to strengthen its influence by eliminating the Iranian threat to its interests and the security of its allies, not to deprive China of importing Saudi oil today or Iranian oil in the future.
The consequences of the current war are also costly for Washington, particularly in terms of inflation and its impact on domestic elections between the two parties.
The discussion of conspiracies will continue.
