Geopolitics is about the relations between nation states. Specifically, it is about how nation states position themselves in the international arena, and utilize their strengths, and hide their weaknesses, in order to dominate others and secure their national interests. Geopolitical analysis looks at developments in this international arena in order to explain why these developments occur, and how they affect the global power balance.
The geopolitical analyst performs one of the most difficult forms of intellectual analysis, as in the realm of geopolitics nation states typically try to hide their actions and/or their motives for these actions. Therefore, the geopolitical analyst must collect information from a variety of fields, not only politics and diplomacy, but also economics, geography, demography, sociology, technology, and history; over a longer period of time; and then formulate the thesis that pieces all established information together, like a puzzle.
The Sunnah of Prophet Mohammed (saw) establishes geopolitical analysis as one of the most important types of analysis. As the spiritual and political leader of the Muslims in Al Madinah, he (saw) organized the continuous gathering of information regarding the enemies of the Muslims. Such that he (saw) could understand what was happening and why it was happening, and in response formulate geopolitical strategies to protect the Muslims against the plans of their enemies, and secure the interests of Islam. The examples of this are many, including his (saw) instruction to Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas (ra) following the Battle of Uhud: “Bring us news of their movements. If they have mounted the camels rather than the horses, then this signifies that they have decided to depart. But if they have mounted their horses rather than their camels, then most likely they are bent on attacking Al Madinah. By Him, in whose hands is my soul, if they march towards Al Madinah, I shall advance towards them and give them battle.” (Narrated by Imam Al Waqidi in “Kitab Al Maghazi”).
In light of the above, it is of the utmost importance that a deep and holistic understanding of the Iran Israel war is developed and utilized for formulation of the most appropriate geopolitical strategy in response.
In June 2025, the simmering conflict between Israel and Iran escalated into open military confrontation, with both nations directly attacking each other using missiles, drones, and airstrikes. This clash cannot be viewed in isolation but must be understood within the broader geopolitical shift in which the United States is redirecting its strategic focus from the Middle East toward its growing rivalry with China.
After decades of military and diplomatic engagement in the Middle East, U.S. policymakers increasingly recognize that prolonged instability in the region distracts from their most pressing geopolitical challenge: containing China’s expanding influence. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have underscored the importance of a “Pivot to Asia” in recent years. Stability in the Middle East is therefore not an end in itself, but a prerequisite for successfully executing that strategy.
In this context, the roles of Israel and Iran must be reevaluated. Israel is entirely dependent on U.S. military and financial support. Iran, although officially an adversary since the 1979 revolution, maintains more pragmatic relations with the U.S. behind the scenes than its rhetoric suggests. Still, both countries continue to pursue their regional ambitions. Iran has expanded its influence into Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen through proxies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis. Israel, seeing this expansion as an existential threat, has responded militarily and diplomatically in an effort to contain it.
In June 2025, Israel launched a massive attack on Iranian military and nuclear installations under the codename Operation Rising Lion. Officially, the goal was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. However, the timing suggests domestic motivations as well: Prime Minister Netanyahu was facing legal and political pressure at home and may have used the conflict to draw in the United States and deflect scrutiny.
The U.S. initially held back but eventually joined the operation several days later under Operation Midnight Hammer. American stealth bombers targeted three deep-underground nuclear facilities, including the heavily fortified Fordow site. Interestingly, U.S. intelligence indicated that Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons at that moment, suggesting the action was more symbolic and political than strategic. Furthermore, evidence suggests the U.S. warned Iran in advance, as satellite images showed evacuated facilities and minimal resulting damage.
Iran, however, could not afford to remain passive. To maintain international credibility and domestic legitimacy, it launched its most extensive direct missile attack ever on Israeli territory, hitting cities such as Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Beersheba. While Israel’s missile defense systems intercepted most of the projectiles, a strike on a hospital caused dozens of casualties. Iran also fired rockets at a U.S. military base in Qatar after notifying both the U.S. and the Qatari government. No casualties occurred, clearly indicating the attack was more of a political signal than a true escalation.
After roughly twelve days of fighting, a ceasefire was brokered through Qatari mediation and direct involvement by President Donald Trump. Notably, Trump had recently visited the region and deliberately excluded Israel from his diplomatic tour, signaling frustration with Netanyahu, who had acted against U.S. preferences such as unilaterally ending a truce with Hamas.
These events show that the U.S. did not engage in the conflict to weaken Iran per se but to deliver a calculated warning to both Israel and Iran. Israel was reminded of its vulnerability without American support, while Iran was warned not to overextend its regional ambitions. At the same time, the conflict opened the door to a new regional balance. There are even signs that the U.S. may tolerate a nuclear-capable Iran if it leads to mutual deterrence similar to what occurred between India and Pakistan. A nuclear Iran could serve to contain Israel, contributing to long-term regional stability.
In short, the June 2025 confrontation was not a traditional war but a managed clash in which the United States reasserted its role as regional power broker. The true objective lies elsewhere: with temporary balance restored in the Middle East, Washington can now fully focus on containing China, the only true systemic challenger to the American-led global order.
Khamis Mwangemi
Member of Hizb ut Tahrir – Kenya