How Israel-Iran rivalry is turning from strategic to civilisational

In October 2025 I wrote the following lines in an article examining potential flashpoints in the global financial order:

“A major flashpoint in the Middle East is the conflict between Israel and Iran. For the sake of its survival, Israel is ready to take drastic steps to maintain peace and stability. The drastic steps could involve sponsoring a regime change in Iran to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Any major escalation between these countries could mean the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which would mean the choking of the oil supply chain, disrupting about 20 per cent of global oil consumption. The resultant supply-side shock would mean that the crude oil price, which is around 60 dollars per barrel, goes into the triple digits.”

At the time, the observation was meant as a warning. Today it reads more like a description of unfolding reality.

The conflict between Israel and Iran has now moved beyond covert operations, proxy warfare, and intelligence skirmishes. What is emerging is something far deeper and more dangerous than a conventional military confrontation. This is not merely a tactical contest between two states pursuing strategic interests. It is a conflict embedded in theology, identity, and historical memory. In other words, it is a spiritual war as much as it is a geopolitical one.

More from Opinion

Understanding this distinction is crucial because spiritual wars rarely end quickly.

Earlier confrontations in the region had the characteristics of limited tactical engagements. The short war in June 2025 was an example. Israel and the United States targeted Iranian nuclear infrastructure, bombed key facilities, and declared success with a familiar phrase: 'mission accomplished'. The objective was narrow. Disable nuclear capabilities, reassert deterrence, and restore the balance of power.

The current situation is different.

The death of Ali Khamenei has altered the psychological terrain of the conflict. In geopolitical terms, leadership transitions often create uncertainty. In ideological systems, however, the death of a leader can transform the conflict itself. In the Iranian worldview, Khamenei will not simply be remembered as a political leader who died in the course of confrontation. He will be elevated to the status of a martyr.

Martyrdom occupies a central place in Shia Islam. The historical memory of Imam Hussein at Karbala, the idea that sacrifice in the face of oppression is the highest form of devotion, shapes political psychology in Iran even today. When a leader dies in conflict with what is perceived as a hostile power, the death does not weaken the movement. It sanctifies it.

For many in Iran, the narrative will be simple and powerful. The Supreme Leader died resisting forces they consider manifestations of Shaitan, or Satan, a term frequently used by Iranian leaders to describe both Israel and the US. In such a framework, the conflict ceases to be about territory or deterrence. It becomes a cosmic struggle between righteousness and evil.

Once conflicts take on that form, compromise becomes far more difficult.

Israel’s perspective is also rooted in spiritual and historical memory. For many Israelis, particularly those influenced by religious Zionism, the confrontation with Iran is not only about nuclear weapons or regional influence. It is interpreted through the lens of biblical archetypes.

One of the most powerful of these archetypes is Amalek.

In Jewish tradition, Amalek represents the eternal enemy of the Jewish people. The biblical command to remember Amalek is not simply a historical recollection. It is a moral instruction about vigilance against forces that seek the destruction of the Jewish nation. Throughout Jewish history, various adversaries have been interpreted through this symbolic framework.

For some Israelis, Iran’s religious establishment now occupies that role.

Another important and core layer of symbolism emerges from the story of Purim. The Book of Esther recounts how Haman, a high official in the Persian Empire, plotted the destruction of the Jews. The narrative culminates with a dramatic reversal in which the Jews pre-emptively defend themselves against their enemies. According to the text, approximately seventy-five thousand people who sought their destruction were killed, and Haman, along with his ten sons, was executed.

This episode is not simply a historical tale. It has become a powerful metaphor for survival in the face of existential threat. It is not a coincidence that the strikes were conducted around Purim.

When Israel carries out pre-emptive strikes against Iranian targets, the parallels are not lost on observers steeped in this tradition. The logic is strikingly similar. If a power declares its intention to destroy you, then a pre-emptive attack on the enemy is not only allowed, it even becomes necessary for the survival of the Jewish nation and to facilitate future peace and stability.

Seen through this lens, Israel’s actions are not framed internally as aggression. They are framed as survival.

The convergence of these two narratives creates a dangerous dynamic. On one side is a state that views the elimination of existential threats as a moral and historical obligation. On the other side is a revolutionary system that interprets resistance and sacrifice as sacred duty.

Neither side sees itself as the aggressor. This is why the current conflict cannot be understood using the conventional language of strategy alone. Military capabilities, deterrence theory, and balance of power calculations still matter. But they are operating within a deeper psychological and theological framework.

The geopolitical consequences could be profound. Iran does not exist in isolation. It sits within a broader network of alliances and strategic partnerships that include Russia and increasingly China. Both powers have reasons to resist an expansion of American and Israeli dominance in the region. On the other side stands the US, along with Israel and several Arab states that have gradually moved toward normalisation with Israel in recent years.

If mismanaged, the conflict risks evolving into a broader alignment of blocs. A scenario in which China, Russia, and Iran confront an opposing coalition of the United States, Israel, and regional partners is no longer unthinkable.

Even without such a dramatic escalation, the economic implications are enormous. The Strait of Hormuz remains the most critical chokepoint in global energy markets. Roughly one-fifth of global oil consumption passes through this narrow waterway. Any disruption to shipping traffic in the strait would create an immediate supply shock.

Energy markets are highly sensitive to such disruptions. Even the perception of risk can push prices sharply higher. A prolonged conflict that threatens the security of the Strait of Hormuz could easily push crude oil prices into triple digits.

The consequences would ripple across the global economy. Inflation would reaccelerate. Central banks would face renewed pressure. Emerging markets that rely heavily on energy imports would be hit particularly hard. Financial markets would reprice geopolitical risk at a scale not seen in years.

In many ways the world has been fortunate that the Israel-Iran confrontation remained contained for so long. For decades the conflict existed largely in the shadows through intelligence operations, cyber warfare, and proxy battles in places like Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. That era may now be ending. History offers many examples of conflicts that began as strategic disputes but evolved into existential struggles once identity and belief became intertwined with geopolitics.

The Israel-Iran confrontation now risks entering that phase. The world may be witnessing the beginning of a conflict whose consequences will extend far beyond the Middle East.

(The author is an Investment Manager and Equity Analyst with a deep interest in geopolitics, financial markets, and global power dynamics. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)