Why is there constant conflict between Iran, Israel, and the United States? A long-term structure of security, power, and narrative:

In the past two years, news from the Middle East has become more frequent.

Iran, Israel, the United States: missiles, airstrikes, sanctions, retaliation, ceasefires, renewed conflict.

Many people may have an intuitive question:

Why are they always fighting?

Why does it seem endless?

If you only look at the news, you would get many answers: religion, history, hatred, territory;

But if you look deeper, it can actually be understood with a simpler structure: this is a conflict of “security dilemmas + power redistribution + ideological narratives” stacked together.

This three-layer structure makes it very difficult to solve it all at once.

1️⃣ At the most basic layer: every country is solving the same problem

First, if you are a country, what are you most afraid of?

There are actually only two answers:

1) Being controlled by others

2) Being destroyed by others

All state behaviors fundamentally revolve around these two issues.

And the three parties—Iran, Israel, and the United States—mutually pose threats in relation to these two problems.

So conflict is a “structural inevitability,” not an accident.

2️⃣ The “rational goals” of each party

1) Israel says: I must be stronger than you, or I won’t survive;

Israel is a very special country: long-displaced, struggling to establish a nation, with a small population and limited land space, having experienced multiple survival crises in history.

In such an environment, it has developed a very clear national logic:

Any force that may threaten my survival must be weakened before it can grow stronger.

So when it sees Iran: this guy is developing missile capabilities, nearing the threshold of nuclear technology, while also supporting armed organizations around me that oppose me.

Its judgment is very straightforward: this is intolerable, I cannot let him develop, I have to take action first!

This is the underlying reason why Israel repeatedly takes the initiative to strike.

2) Iran says: screw you, if I don’t get stronger, I will be suppressed or even overthrown for a long time.

For decades, Iran has been facing long-term sanctions from the United States and the entire Western system. Military pressure from surrounding regions and external hostility towards its regime.

In this environment, it has also formed a very coherent logic: I need to become stronger because only with sufficient deterrent power will I not be easily attacked and can make them shine my shoes.

Thus, it will do three things:

Develop missile and nuclear capabilities (establish deterrence);

Support allies in neighboring countries (create a buffer zone);

Use the narrative of “anti-American and anti-Israeli” to unite internally.

For it, these are not “expansion,” but survival strategies.

3) The United States says: the Middle East must be under a controllable state; whoever doesn’t obey, I will handle.

Lastly, looking at the United States: the Middle East is important not just because of history or religion but because it concerns two core resources:

Global energy supply;

Key maritime passages.

If a strong country emerges in this region that is completely outside U.S. control, the entire global energy and financial order would be impacted.

So the U.S. goals are actually very simple:

The Middle East must remain in a “controllable, balanced state without a single hegemony,” under this logic, a continuously strengthening Iran that does not wish to be integrated into the system will naturally become a long-term adversary, and I will have my little brother take you down.

3️⃣ The overlapping goals create a “structurally irreconcilable situation”

So you see, when you put the three parties' goals together, you get a typical structural contradiction:

1) Israel cannot allow Iran to grow stronger because if Iran becomes stronger it is very dangerous;

2) Iran knows that it must become stronger to protect itself;

3) The U.S. cannot allow Iran to become a regional dominant power.

These three pieces of logic contradict each other.

This feeling is somewhat like the “dark forest theory” in Liu Cixin's Three-Body Problem; anyway, the chain of suspicion will continue, so this is not simply a problem of international negotiation techniques, but rather a structurally unsatisfiable problem.

This is the root cause of the recurring conflicts.

4️⃣ Why are there always “fights, but they never end”

Many people might find it strange: if you are dissatisfied, just fight, go all out; since the contradictions are so deep, why not engage in a complete war?

The reason is also very realistic: this is the 21st century, everyone has nuclear weapons, and the cost of total war is unbearable for all three parties.

Thus, a subtle “controlled conflict model” has formed in reality:

Israel strikes specific targets;

Iran retaliates;

The United States intervenes to maintain boundaries;

Then each party pauses at a certain phase point.

Once in April 2024, again in June 2025, it went on for twelve whole days, and then today, there is a trend of escalation.

You see, the result is: conflicts are continuously released but also continuously controlled, like a periodic “pressure release mechanism.”

So you will observe: conflicts recur but have never moved towards a complete showdown.

5️⃣ Ideology makes conflict harder to end;

Of course, if it were only interests, negotiation would be possible.

But the Middle Eastern issue is compounded by an added layer of faith and narrative: for Iran, “anti-American and anti-Israeli” is part of the regime's legitimacy.

For Israel, “survival security” is the foundation of the nation’s existence.

This makes it very difficult, meaning that often it’s not about “willingness to compromise,”

But rather “whether it can be explained domestically,” any country, any regime, if its governing legitimacy is questioned, cannot continue to function.

So, when a conflict relates to both security and narrative, it is hard to end it through simple agreements.

6️⃣ Putting it in a longer historical perspective

In fact, this is not a singular event; if we extend the time frame a bit, you will find that such conflicts have repeatedly occurred throughout human history:

Emerging powers challenge the existing order;

Old orders try to maintain dominance;

Security dilemmas form between regional powers;

Essentially, this is a structural friction during the process of power redistribution.

Only in the Middle East, this process has been intensified by energy, religion, and historical trauma,

So it appears more intense and lasting.

7️⃣ Back to reality: How will it affect the financial market?

Every time a conflict breaks out, the transmission goes something like this: geopolitical conflict → risk expectations rise → changes in liquidity preference → asset repricing.

However, different assets react completely differently to such conflicts.

1) Gold: the most direct “fear price indicator”: it rises!

Every time conflict escalates, gold often responds first.

The reason is simple:

It does not rely on any country’s credit, and is the most stable “safe haven consensus” in history; as uncertainty rises, funds naturally flow to a type of safe asset that needs no explanation.

So you will see a very stable structure:

Conflict escalation → gold rises;

Conflict de-escalation → gold falls or fluctuates.

It’s like the market’s “emotional thermometer.”

2) U.S. stocks: swaying between “risk” and “liquidity”: mainly down!

The reaction of U.S. stocks to geopolitical conflicts is a bit more complex.

In the short term: conflict escalation → risk appetite declines → the stock market is under pressure;

But in the medium term, another factor affects it: if the conflict brings economic pressure, the Federal Reserve may turn to a more relaxed policy, thus creating a structure where: short-term decline → expectations of easing → rise again.

This is why you may see that sometimes when a war breaks out, the stock market reaches new highs later on. Because the market is not only trading the “event,” but also the policy pathways behind the event.

3) Bitcoin: between “risk assets” and “safe-haven assets”: usually gets sold off early and falls.

Bitcoin's characteristics are still regarded by most as risk assets, hence it reacts the most dramatically to declines; however, generally speaking, it also tends to recover the fastest, which is because the nature of BTC is multi-dimensional; it is both a risk asset and a “hedge” asset, and provides a long-term hedge against the monetary and credit systems.

So in the initial phase of conflict, market panic tightens liquidity, leading to BTC dropping alongside risk assets, but in the later stages, as the conflict persists and trust diminishes, skepticism regarding the traditional system rises, and capital begins to seek “sovereignty-free assets,” BTC instead starts to strengthen.

4) A longer cycle: a “new source of macro volatility”:

If we look at it over a longer time frame, these kinds of Middle Eastern conflicts are likely to become a permanent variable in financial markets in the coming years.

They won’t affect the market every day, but will continue to trigger at crucial moments:

Risk repricing;

Capital reallocation;

Narrative switching.

In other words, it may not be the sole factor determining market direction, but will become an external force that consistently interrupts market rhythms.

5) To sum it up in a very straightforward way regarding the significance of this issue for the market:

The more frequent the conflicts, the more uncertain the world is;

The higher the uncertainty, the more valuable safe assets become;

While assets reflecting “systemic distrust” will be repriced over a longer cycle.

These three things will repeatedly emerge for a long time to come.

Having written this, the question has gradually extended from “why do they conflict” to “how this world will change because of it.”

What we can do may not be to predict each conflict, but to understand the structures behind them and find our own position amid the changes.

Video source: @ME_Observer_

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。