To understand the behavior of modern states, the Realist approach in international relations emphasizes that states have no permanent friends or enemies—only permanent interests. An enemy at one time may become a friend at another time. As history tells us, during World War I and World War II, the United States and Germany fought each other, yet today they are friends and members of the NATO alliance. The United States dropped nuclear bombs on Japan’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; presently both are trade partners because of common interests. Likewise, there was a time when the United States and Israel maintained friendly and strategic relations with Iran; today they confront each other through direct and indirect military exchanges.

The Eisenhower administration in the 1950s helped restore Iran’s Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and provided Iran with enriched uranium for civilian purposes while training its scientists. Relations between the states were going smoothly until the Iranian Revolution of 1979. As a result of the revolution, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s rule ended and he went into exile in the United States. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became the new leader of Iran and showed resistance against the United States. The hostage crisis of 1979 marked the beginning of tense relations between the two states. A similar turning point came in relations between Iran and Israel. Prior to 1979, Iran and Israel maintained close economic, military, and intelligence cooperation. Specifically, they operated a joint oil pipeline known as the Eilat–Ashkelon Pipeline (or the Trans-Israel Pipeline), which served as a vital energy link between the two nations. Iran and Egypt were among the only Muslim states that initially recognized Israel. The revolutionary government could not maintain good relations with the United States and Israel, resulting in antagonistic relations.

By the late 1980s, Iran’s uranium enrichment program was viewed by Western powers as a potential pathway to developing nuclear weapons, although Iran denied having ambitions to develop nuclear arms. This became a critical point of contention between Iran, the United States, and Israel. Iran was also labeled by the United States and Israel as supporting proxy groups against their assets and interests in the region, and this confrontation intensified after 9/11. In 2002, the George W. Bush administration labeled Iran part of the “Axis of Evil” alongside North Korea and Iraq.

In 2015, the Barack Obama administration brokered a nuclear agreement with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), aimed at limiting Iran’s uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief. However, the agreement did not last long, as Donald Trump, during his first term in office, withdrew from the nuclear deal and imposed additional economic sanctions while freezing Iranian assets. Similar steps were taken by European powers following the United States, which further complicated relations. The Joe Biden administration, which took office in 2021, could not reverse the decision taken by Donald Trump regarding Iran, despite Biden having served as Vice President during the Obama administration when the deal was originally negotiated.

While campaigning for a second term in office, President Trump based much of his campaign on the promise that he would be a peacemaker instead of initiating new wars like his predecessors. He repeatedly stated that if he were president, the war between Russia and Ukraine would never have happened. He also took credit for stopping eight major conflicts, including India and Pakistan, Thailand and Cambodia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, Congo and Rwanda, Serbia and Kosovo, Egypt and Ethiopia, and tensions between Israel and Iran after Israel attacked Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025. During the Israel–Hamas war in Gaza, the United States also joined Israel by striking Iranian nuclear sites. A new round of nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran began under the mediation of Oman and were reportedly progressing positively, with both sides signaling constructive outcomes. Unexpectedly, on the dawn of February 28, 2026, according to multiple international media reports, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in joint U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iranian targets. In retaliation, Iran attacked U.S. assets and military bases in Gulf countries, as it had previously warned of retaliatory actions.

Genuine diplomacy with Iran was not effectively conducted, as the United States acted while negotiations were ongoing on more than one occasion. In a statement, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said: “Iran has always been open to diplomacy. Contrary to American claims, Iran has a strong record of good faith in negotiations. In previous talks, including last June, the United States attacked us during negotiations.” The United States claimed that Iran posed an imminent threat, prompting preemptive strikes. Iran also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, which could have significant regional and global economic consequences, as approximately 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passes through this strategic waterway.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, has stated that there is no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. This contrasts with the position of the United States, which maintains that Iran is approaching nuclear weapons capability, a concern that has grown amid rising regional tensions. The situation draws a historical parallel to pre-2003 Iraq, when U.S. claims about weapons of mass destruction were later found to be unsupported. Major U.S. interventions after 9/11, particularly the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, resulted in significant human and economic losses, with costs exceeding $8 trillion according to the Brown University Costs of War Project. Having failed to achieve their original strategic objectives, these conflicts eventually ended in withdrawal. Opinion polls also indicate that a majority of Americans disapprove of U.S. strikes on Iran, and a Senate war powers resolution aimed at ending military action without congressional approval ultimately failed.

If the conflict spreads and Gulf states respond to Iranian attacks, the confrontation could expand beyond the U.S.–Israel dimension into a broader Gulf–Iran war. Such a development would be disastrous for the region and for countries like Pakistan. Pakistan is already facing complex security challenges on both its eastern and western fronts. In the event of regime change or the collapse of the Iranian government, proxy conflicts or even civil war could emerge in Iran. In such a situation, Pakistan could face an influx of refugees as well as the risk of proxy involvement in the province of Balochistan. A new front along the Iranian border could further deteriorate provincial security, particularly as security forces are already engaged with militant groups such as the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF), and other insurgent organizations. Countries such as Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Indonesia, and Oman, along with Russia and China, should immediately engage in diplomatic efforts to prevent further escalation and loss of lives. Gulf countries should also engage with the United States, as the war directly affects their economies, security, and infrastructure. Importantly, public trust in the safety and stability of Gulf countries could also become a serious challenge. Genuine diplomacy must prevail, giving peace a real chance before violence spreads further.

© Eurasia Review