The escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, marked by military strikes, proxy wars, and ideological confrontations, have been framed by some as a modern manifestation of a "clash of civilizations," a concept popularized by Samuel Huntington in his 1993 thesis. Huntington argued that post-Cold War conflicts would primarily arise along cultural and civilizational fault lines, with differences in religion, ethnicity, and historical heritage driving global tensions. The Iran-Israel conflict and war, intertwined with the strategic ambitions of the United States and China, appears to test this theory, as it pits two regional powers with distinct civilizational identities against each other while drawing in global superpowers vying for influence. The Iran-Israel war, as a potential clash of civilizations, is bound to shape the roles of America and China in shaping the future trajectory of power and civilizational supremacy or a more pragmatic contest for geopolitical dominance.
A Civilizational Divide
At its core, the Iran-Israel conflict is rooted in a complex interplay of historical grievances, ideological differences, and geopolitical ambitions. Iran, a predominantly Shia Muslim nation with a Persian heritage, has positioned itself as a leader of the "Axis of Resistance," opposing Western influence and Israel’s existence since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Israel, a Jewish state with a Western-aligned identity, views Iran’s nuclear ambitions and support for proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas as existential threats. This dynamic has led some analysts to frame the conflict as a clash between Islamic and Western civilizations, with Iran representing a revisionist Islamic force and Israel embodying a Western-aligned outpost in the Middle East. Huntington’s "Clash of Civilizations" theory posits that cultural identities, rather than ideology or economics, will drive future conflicts. In this context, Iran’s Islamic Republic, with its anti-Western rhetoric and support for militant groups, aligns with what Huntington described as the "Islamic civilization," which he argued is prone to instability due to population growth and fundamentalist movements. Israel, on the other hand, is seen as a unique state with a civilizational identity closely tied to the West, particularly through its alliance with the United States. The October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas, supported by Iran, and subsequent Israeli retaliations, including strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025, underscore this divide, with Iran framing its actions as resistance against Western imperialism and Israel defending its sovereignty against existential threats. However, the civilizational lens risks oversimplifying the conflict. While religious and cultural differences amplify tensions, the Iran-Israel rivalry is equally driven by pragmatic concerns: Iran’s pursuit of regional hegemony and Israel’s need to maintain military supremacy. Iran’s support for proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis is less about spreading Islamic ideology and more about projecting power and deterring adversaries like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Similarly, Israel’s strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, such as Natanz in June 2025, aim to neutralize a strategic threat rather than assert cultural dominance. Thus, while civilizational rhetoric may fuel public narratives, the conflict is deeply rooted in realpolitik.
The Reluctant Hegemon
The United States has long been a central player in the Iran-Israel conflict, primarily as Israel’s staunchest ally. The U.S. provides Israel with billions in military aid annually and has consistently supported its right to self-defense, as evidenced by its role in intercepting Iranian missiles during attacks in April and October 2024. However, the U.S. approach to Iran has been more complex, oscillating between confrontation and diplomacy. The Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 and imposition of severe sanctions aimed to cripple Iran’s economy and curb its nuclear ambitions. Yet, by June 2025, the U.S. was engaged in renewed nuclear talks with Iran, reflecting a desire to avoid direct military conflict. The U.S. role in the Iran-Israel conflict is shaped by its broader strategic goal of maintaining global supremacy. A nuclear-armed Iran would challenge U.S. influence in the Middle East, embolden anti-American forces, and threaten allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. However, the U.S. has been cautious about being drawn into a wider war, as evidenced by its public distancing from Israel’s June 2025 strikes on Iran. Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized that Israel acted unilaterally, and President Trump warned Iran against targeting U.S. interests, signaling a desire to avoid escalation. This reflects a broader American strategy: to support Israel while preventing a regional conflagration that could disrupt global energy markets or strain U.S. resources. Critically, the U.S. is not merely reacting to a civilizational clash but pursuing its own interests. The Middle East remains a critical region for U.S. energy security, military basing, and counterterrorism efforts. By backing Israel and containing Iran, the U.S. seeks to maintain its hegemonic influence, countering the rise of revisionist powers like China and Russia. However, the U.S. faces a dilemma: direct involvement risks entangling it in a costly war, while inaction could embolden Iran and its proxies, potentially destabilizing the region further)
China’s Growing Influence: A Counterweight to the West
China’s role in the Iran-Israel conflict is less direct but increasingly significant. As a rising superpower, China seeks to challenge U.S. dominance and reshape the global order. Its strategic partnership with Iran, formalized through a 25-year cooperation agreement in 2021, provides Iran with economic and military support, including oil purchases that circumvent U.S. sanctions. China’s response to the June 2025 Israel-Iran escalation was measured, expressing "deep worry" and offering to mediate, but its broader strategy aligns with Iran’s anti-Western stance. Huntington viewed China’s Sinic civilization as a long-term threat to the West, predicting that its rise would clash with American hegemony. In the context of the Iran-Israel conflict, China’s support for Iran serves multiple purposes. First, it weakens U.S. influence by bolstering a key adversary. Second, it secures access to Iranian oil, critical for China’s energy needs. Third, it positions China as a champion of the "Global South," aligning with Iran, Russia, and other states opposing Western dominance. For example, China’s veto of a UN Security Council resolution in 2023 calling for a pause in the Israel-Hamas conflict reflects its alignment with Iran’s narrative of resisting Western imperialism. However, China’s involvement is not without risks. An all-out Iran-Israel war could disrupt global oil markets, threatening China’s economy, which relies heavily on Middle Eastern energy. Moreover, China’s cautious diplomacy—urging restraint while supporting Iran—suggests it prefers to avoid direct entanglement in the conflict. Instead, China leverages the situation to undermine U.S. credibility, portraying itself as a neutral arbiter compared to America’s perceived bias toward Israel. This strategy enhances China’s soft power while positioning it as a counterweight to U.S. supremacy.
A Clash of Civilizations or a Superpower Proxy War
While the Iran-Israel conflict can be framed as a clash of civilizations, this perspective overlooks the pragmatic calculations driving both regional actors and their superpower backers. Iran’s actions are less about imposing Islamic supremacy and more about securing its survival against perceived threats from Israel and the U.S. Israel, meanwhile, prioritizes neutralizing Iran’s nuclear and proxy threats over asserting cultural dominance. The involvement of the U.S. and China further complicates the narrative. The U.S. supports Israel to maintain its regional influence, while China backs Iran to challenge the U.S.-led order, not because of civilizational affinity but due to strategic interests.The conflict also highlights the limitations of Huntington’s thesis. Civilizational identities may amplify tensions, but they are not the primary drivers. Economic interests, such as control over oil markets, and geopolitical goals, like regional dominance, take precedence. For instance, Iran’s retaliation against Israel’s June 2025 strikes targeted military and nuclear sites, not cultural symbols, indicating a focus on strategic assets. Similarly, China’s support for Iran is driven by energy needs and anti-American strategy, not a shared Sinic-Islamic vision.
The Despicable Ambitions
Israel’s ambition for a “Greater Israel,” encompassing territories like the West Bank, Gaza, and parts of Lebanon and Syria, is often cited as a driver of regional conflict. Rooted in historical and biblical claims, this vision fuels tensions with neighbors, particularly Iran and its proxies, who view it as expansionist. The occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967 and settlement expansion intensify Palestinian resistance and Arab hostility, providing Iran a pretext to support groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel’s 2025 strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, partly justified by security concerns, are seen by critics as advancing territorial dominance under the guise of self-defense. This ambition complicates peace efforts, alienates allies, and escalates proxy wars, drawing in superpowers like the U.S. and China. While Israel denies pursuing Greater Israel, its policies sustain perceptions of expansionism, perpetuating a cycle of conflict and undermining regional stability.
Quranic Mention
The Quran does not explicitly mention Israel as a modern state but refers to the Children of Israel (Bani Isra’il) extensively, particularly in Surah Al-Isra (17:2-8). It describes their ascendance as a chosen people, granted divine favor, scripture (Torah), and prophethood, flourishing under Prophet Moses(AS) and Prophet Davood(AS). However, Bani Isra’il fall is attributed to disobedience, corruption, and arrogance, leading to divine punishment, including the destruction of their temple and exile. The Quran suggests two periods of ascendance and decline, with mercy contingent on righteousness. Some Islamic scholars interpret these verses as cyclical, implying Israel’s modern rise could precede another fall if it strays from justice. Iran and its allies cite these verses to frame Israel’s actions as oppressive along with the recent genocide of Palestine people for predicting divine retribution. However, interpretations vary, and applying ancient prophecy to modern geopolitics remains contentious, often fueling ideological narratives in the Iran-Israel war.
Toward De-escalation or Wider Conflict?
The Iran-Israel conflict and war, intensified by the June 2025 strikes and counter strikes, risks spiraling into a broader regional war with global ramifications. While it can be viewed through the lens of a civilizational clash, the underlying drivers are geopolitical and economic. The United States and China, as superpowers, play pivotal roles in shaping the conflict’s trajectory. The U.S. seeks to maintain its hegemony by supporting Israel overtly and covertly and containing Iran, while China leverages Iran to challenge the Western-led order. However, both superpowers have incentives to avoid a full-scale war, given the potential for economic disruption and military overstretch.
De-escalation requires pragmatic diplomacy that addresses the legitimate security concerns of all parties. The U.S. could revive nuclear talks with Iran, offering sanctions relief in exchange for verifiable limits on its nuclear program. China, meanwhile, could use its economic leverage to push Iran toward restraint, while engaging with regional actors like Saudi Arabia to reduce tensions. Ultimately, the Iran-Israel war is less about civilizational supremacy and more about power dynamics in a multipolar world. By recognizing these realities, the U.S. and China can help prevent a catastrophic escalation, fostering a path toward stability rather than supremacy. In case de-escalation does not happen, it is bound to transmute into a full scale world war–III with wider implications and conflict which could soon pave way for a new world order and format a restructured power dynamic.
Email:-------------------------- hamwani24@gmail.com
