Why are there ongoing conflicts between Iran, Israel, and the United States? A long-term structure about security, power, and narrative: In the past two years, news in the Middle East has become increasingly frequent. Iran, Israel, and the United States: missiles, airstrikes, sanctions, retaliation, ceasefire, and renewed conflict. Many people have an intuitive question: Why are they always fighting? Why is it always impossible to finish? If you only look at the news, you will get many answers: religion, history, hatred, territory; But if we look deeper, we can actually understand it with a simpler structure: this is a conflict of "security dilemma+power redistribution+ideological narrative" stacked together. These three layers of structure determine that it is difficult to solve at once. one ️⃣ Bottom line: Every country is solving the same problem Firstly, if you were a country, what would you fear the most? There are actually only two answers: 1) Controlled by others 2) Destroyed by others Almost all national actions revolve around these two things at the bottom. Iran, Israel, and the United States pose a threat to each other on these two issues. So conflict is a 'structural inevitability', not a coincidence. two ️⃣ The 'rational goals' of each party 1) Israel said, 'I must be stronger than you, otherwise I cannot survive.'; Israel is a very special country: it has been displaced for a long time, struggling to establish a state, has a small population, limited land space, and has experienced multiple survival crises throughout its history. Becoming dirty in such an environment is like a person who has grown up through trial and error, forming a very clear national logic: Any force that may threaten my survival must be weakened before it becomes stronger. So when it sees Iran: this guy is developing missile capabilities, approaching the threshold of nuclear technology, while supporting neighboring armed groups and opposing me. Then its judgment will be very direct: that's okay, I can't let him develop, I have to fuck him first! This is the underlying reason for Israel's repeated proactive actions. 2) Iran says: Go to hell, if I don't become strong, I will be suppressed or even overthrown for a long time. Iran has been facing long-term sanctions from the United States and the entire Western system for the past few decades. Military pressure in the surrounding areas and external hostility towards its regime. In this environment, it has also formed a very consistent logic: I want to become stronger, because only with enough deterrence ability can I not be easily attacked and make them polish my shoes for me. So it will do three things: Developing missile and nuclear capabilities (establishing deterrence); Supporting allies in neighboring countries (forming a buffer zone); Use the narrative of 'anti American and anti Israeli' to unite the internal. For it, these are not 'expansion', but survival strategies. 3) The United States says: The Middle East must be under control, and whoever doesn't listen, I will do it. Finally, let's take a look 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 sea lanes. If a powerful country emerges in this region that is completely beyond the control of the US system, the entire global energy and financial order will be impacted. So the goal of the United States is actually very simple: The Middle East must remain in a state of "controllability, balance, and no single hegemony". Under this logic, an Iran that continues to strengthen but refuses to be included in the system will naturally become a long-term target of confrontation. I will let my little brother kill you. three ️⃣ The superposition of three objectives forms an 'unsolvable structure' So you see, when you put the three goals together, you get a typical structural contradiction: 1) Israel cannot allow Iran to become stronger, because if Iran becomes stronger, it is very dangerous; 2) Iran knows that in order to protect itself, it must become stronger; 3) The United States cannot allow Iran to become the dominant force in the region. These three logics are inherently conflicting. This feeling is a bit like Liu Cixin's "Dark Forest Theory" in the Three Body Problem. Anyway, the chain of suspicion will continue, so this thing is not a simple issue of international negotiation skills, but a structural problem that cannot be satisfied at the same time. This is the root cause of repeated conflicts. four ️⃣ Why is it always' fight, but never finish ' Many people may find it strange: if you are not satisfied, just do it, just do it to the death. Since the conflict is so deep, why not fight a thorough war? The reason is also very practical: this is the damn 21st century, everyone has nuclear weapons, and the cost of a full-scale war cannot be borne by any three parties. So a subtle 'controllable conflict pattern' emerged in reality: Israel strikes certain targets; Iran retaliates; The United States intervenes to maintain the border; Then all parties stopped at a stage node. We will do it again in April 2024, and in June 2025, we will do it again for a full 12 days. And today, there is a trend of upgrading. You see, the result is that conflicts are constantly released but also constantly controlled, like a periodic 'stress release mechanism'. So you will see that conflicts repeatedly occur, but never lead to a complete showdown. five ️⃣ Ideology makes conflicts more difficult to end; Of course, if there is only interest here, it can actually be negotiated. But the problem with the Middle East is that it also adds a layer of faith and narrative: for Iran, "anti American and anti Israeli" is part of the legitimacy of the regime. For Israel, 'survival security' is the foundation of the country's existence. This is too difficult, which means that many times, it's not about whether one is willing to compromise or not, But it's about whether it can be explained domestically. If the legitimacy of any country or regime is questioned, it cannot continue to play. So, when a conflict is about both security and narrative, it is difficult to end it through a simple agreement. six ️⃣ Put it in a longer historical perspective In fact, this is not a single event. If you extend the time, you will find that such conflicts have repeatedly occurred in human history: Emerging forces challenge the existing order; The old order attempts to maintain its dominant position; The formation of security dilemmas among regional forces; Essentially, this is a structural friction in the process of power redistribution. However, in the Middle East, this process is compounded by energy, religion, and historical trauma, So it appears more intense and persistent. seven ️⃣ Returning to Reality: How Will It Affect Financial Markets? The transmission of each war is roughly like this: geopolitical conflicts → rising risk expectations → changes in liquidity preferences → asset repricing. But different assets have completely different ways of responding to such conflicts. 1) Gold: The most direct 'fear pricing tool': rising! When conflicts escalate in each round, the first thing to react is often gold. The reason is simple: It does not rely on any country's credit and is the most stable "safe haven consensus" in history. When uncertainty rises, funds will naturally flow into a safe asset that does not require explanation. So you will see a very stable structure: Conflict escalation → Gold appreciation; Conflict eases → Gold falls or oscillates. It is like an emotional thermometer for the market. 2) US stock market: Swinging between "risk" and "liquidity": mainly down! The response of the US stock market to geopolitical conflicts is more complex. In the short term: conflict escalation → decrease in risk appetite → pressure on the stock market; But in the medium term, it will also be influenced by another factor: if the conflict brings economic pressure, the Federal Reserve may shift towards looser policies, and the market will then have a structure: short-term decline → expected easing → another rise. That's why you see that sometimes wars happen and the stock market hits new highs afterwards. Because market trading is not just about 'events', but the policy path behind the events. 3) Bitcoin: Between "risk assets" and "safe haven assets": This stage is generally the first to be sold off and fall. The characteristics of Bitcoin are currently considered as a risky asset, so its downward reaction is the most intense. However, generally speaking, the V-shaped reaction is also the fastest. This is because BTC has three-dimensional characteristics, it is a risky asset, a "safe haven" asset, and a long-term hedge against the currency and credit systems. So in the early stages of the conflict, the market panicked and liquidity tightened, causing BTC to fall along with risky assets. However, in the middle and later stages, as the conflict continued and trust declined, people's distrust of the traditional system increased. When capital began to search for "sovereign assets", BTC actually began to strengthen. 4) Longer cycle: a 'new source of macro volatility': If we look at it over time, such Middle Eastern conflicts are likely to become a permanent variable in the financial markets in the coming years. It won't affect the market every day, but it will constantly trigger at critical moments: Risk repricing; Fund reallocation; Narrative switching. In other words, it may not be the only factor determining the direction of the market, but it can become an external force that constantly interrupts the pace of the market. 5) If we use a very intuitive sentence to understand the significance of this matter to the market: The more frequent the conflicts, the more uncertain the world becomes; The higher the uncertainty, the more valuable the safety assets are; Assets that lack trust in the system will be re priced over a longer period of time. These three things will repeatedly occur for a long time in the future. By this point, the question has gradually extended from 'why do they conflict' to 'how will the world change as a result'. And what we can do may not be to predict every conflict, but to understand the structure behind it and find our own place in the changes. Video from: @ ME_observer_