Why a US-Iranian war?

To begin with, a word must be said: that the Iranian regime is a theocratic, oppressive, and authoritarian government is true, and only a fool´-or-someone with ulterior motives would deny it. That the Iranian people deserve a better system and a better life is also true, and only a racist´-or-a reactionary would deny it. As for the claim that America mobilized its fearsome military machine for these reasons, that is the greatest falsehood repeated only by fools. America has never been the Good Samaritan, nor is it expected to be, nor is it expected of any country whatsoever. If it is appropriate for us as individuals to follow this path, then countries and their leaders should not follow it, but rather they should follow the interests of the state and the nation. Wars in our time, and indeed in every era, break out for strict material reasons related to the geography of the place, the geography of resources, and the geography of the population.
In this article, we will examine one of the reasons, based on our understanding of resource geography, for the US-Iranian conflict: the role of energy sources (oil and gas in particular), their connection to the dollar, and their central role in this war. We will demonstrate that the causes of wars do not lie in people s minds and ideas, but rather in their guts and the solid ground they walk upon. Explanation

of the American position: Iran possesses the second largest gas reserves on Earth after Russia, making it the only country capable of serving as a strategic alternative to Russia in supplying Europe with gas. Washington believes that the integration of Iranian gas with Russian gas (or even coordination between them) will create a "gas OPEC" capable of completely strangling the Western economy. Therefore, America has spared no effort in preventing the export of Iranian gas to ensure that Europe remains dependent on American liquefied natural gas (LNG). This brings enormous economic gains to America and strengthens Europe s dependence on it, preventing it from having complete freedom of decision-making because it does not own its own energy resources but is held hostage by American will. This has been the American plan since the Marshall Plan, which was visited by the French leader De , who adopted the French oil company Total, while most European countries relied on American oil companies. This enabled De Gaulle to take a relatively independent approach from American will, while his neighbors could never do so. We might recall how De Gaulle condemned the American war on Vietnam and imposed a military embargo on Israel after the 1967 war. Perhaps Macron was trying to follow in his footsteps,´-or-this was on his mind when he rejected the American war on Iran, subsequently accusing it of illegitimacy and a violation of international law. We will mention this in its proper place. Washington had previously succeeded in thwarting the "Friendship Pipeline" project, through which Iran sought to export gas to Iraq and Syria and then to Europe via the Mediterranean. This would have granted Iran immense political influence in the heart of the continent. With the continuation of the Russian-Ukrainian war, Europe s need for gas became critical and vital. Washington saw no alternative but to instigate the war, thus preventing Tehran from becoming Europe s "savior." This would grant Iran overwhelming political immunity which European country would dare oppose Iran if its gas supply and heating were in Tehran s hands?




The third calamity is that Iran has already signed long-term strategic agreements with China to supply it with energy. The United States, for its part, sees the flow of Iranian gas and oil to China as "fuel" for the growth of the Chinese giant, its fierce rival that threatens American global hegemony and keeps it up at night.
On the other hand, America is fully aware that liberalizing the Iranian gas trade means filling Tehran s coffers with hundreds of billions of dollars, which translates into inexhaustible funding for its allies in the region (Hezbollah, the Houthis, etc.). Therefore, the aim of the war was to dry up the source, meaning to dry up the sources of wealth before they could be transformed into a powerful military force.
That was regarding energy itself, but what about the routes for its delivery and trade? Iran overlooks the Strait of Hormuz, the most important artery for global oil trade--;-- It is therefore no coincidence that America aims to ensure Iran cannot use oil as a weapon´-or-close the straits as a tool of international pressure. Naturally, securing navigation in the Red Sea and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait against threats posed by Iran s allies (such as the Houthis) has become a top priority. Another concern that America fears most is the formation of a rival (Eastern) alliance and the transformation of Iran into a major base for Chinese and Russian influence in the region.
Consequently, it has sought to isolate Iran to prevent it from becoming a bridge connecting Central Asia to the Middle East within projects like the Belt and Road Initiative, not to mention the potential for advanced military and technological integration between Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing.
As for its proxies and allies, the United States is committed to protecting its Gulf allies to ensure the continued flow of oil and the stability of the dollar-based global financial system. The conflict with Iran aims to prove that Washington is the only reliable "security umbrella" in the region, preventing these countries from turning eastward. It goes without saying that America considers the weakening of Iran the primary guarantee for Israel s continued dominance in the region, alongside the Gulf states,´-or-"cash cows," as Trump calls them.
Interpreting the European Position
:
We observe a sort of division in the European stance: one group of countries condemns and denounces the war, while another praises and applauds it. However, neither the first group are angels and doves of peace, nor are the second group harbingers of bloodshed and destruction. Rather, it is the underlying "energy" beneath each of their positions that can explain this contradiction.
Italy, Spain, Norway, and, seemingly, France, are among the most vocal in their condemnation, while the Czech Republic, Romania, Poland, and the Baltic states are among the most ardent supporters. Despite the apparent contradiction, this energy, the need for it, and its complex interrelationships are what explain each of their positions.
Eastern European countries that generally support the war (and which were entirely dependent on Russian gas) are seeking to become a hub for distributing American liquefied natural gas in Europe. Their support for the American position enhances their chances of obtaining preferential energy deals and American investment in energy infrastructure.
These Eastern European countries also hope to acquire advanced American military technology at reduced prices´-or-through military grants as a reward for their political support of the military operations.
It also seeks to break the Franco-German "hegemony," as Eastern European countries use their close alliance with Washington to increase their political weight within the European --union-- and compete with the "Paris-Berlin" axis, which has always tended towards moderation and independence from Washington.
In response to the Eastern European countries embrace of the United States, Macron and Merz launched the "Nuclear Steering Group," which aims to involve countries like Poland in French nuclear deterrence exercises. The goal is to reassure these countries that Europe is capable of protecting itself without needing to rely entirely on Washington.
Meanwhile, the embargo imposed on Iran, and even the severe sanctions on its oil and energy resources, have harmed major French companies (such as Total, Renault, and Stellantis) that have significant investments in Iran. France aims to maintain the possibility of returning to these markets in the future. France (especially under Macron) also seeks to consolidate "European sovereignty" and refuses to automatically follow American policies that could harm --dir--ect European interests.
The reality is that American gas alone is not enough to fully meet Europe s needs. France and Europe are also heavily dependent on Qatar (which supplies Europe with approximately 8-13% of its needs). Any war with Iran would pose a --dir--ect threat to the Strait of Hormuz, potentially halting Qatari gas exports and creating a global shortage that the US cannot immediately compensate for.
There is an ongoing debate in France and Europe about the risks of replacing dependence on Russia with dependence on the US. This is like jumping from the frying pan into the fire, so France is constantly striving to diversify its energy sources (Algeria, Norway, Nigeria, Qatar) and maintain a diplomatic balance that ensures the stability of all these sources.
Military tensions have caused some Qatari production to halt and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz to cease, demonstrating to France and other Europeans that relying solely on American gas is an insufficient gamble to protect European energy security. This is not a trivial matter,
but given Europe s long history of dependency and acquiescence since the Marshall Plan, Paris and Berlin have avoided -dir-ect confrontation with the Trump administration, which threatened to cut off trade with dissenting countries like Spain. They have merely emphasized that they "did not participate in the initial offensive strikes" while continuing intelligence coordination.

Ultimately, the conflict is not about "who sells the gas," but rather about "who controls the energy levers" that power the world s factories and
armies….
The crux of the matter,

as Nietzsche says (though I have reservations):
"The weaker is driven by its subjugation to serve the stronger, to convince itself that it is the master of the weaker--;-- this is the only pleasure it does not wish to relinquish."

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1