Abstract

This essay examines the US–Israel–Iran War of 2026 through a political and strategic lens, focusing on its key incidents, major actors, and broader geopolitical implications. It analyzes the decision-making dynamics between the United States and Israel, highlighting both strong coordination and strategic differences. The study further evaluates the concerns and strategies of direct and indirect participants, including Iran’s asymmetric approach and the cautious responses of East Asian countries. It also assesses the shift in the position of Donald Trump from unilateral confidence to seeking broader international support.

The essay explores the roles of China and India as pragmatic actors pursuing strategic autonomy, and discusses the likely outcome of the conflict as a managed or negotiated settlement rather than a decisive victory. Finally, it examines the indirect but significant impacts on Nepal, particularly in terms of economic vulnerability, remittance dependency, and foreign policy challenges. Overall, the essay argues that the conflict reflects the complexity of modern international relations, where power, interdependence, and strategic restraint interact in shaping global outcomes.

1. Introduction

The US–Israel–Iran war is a major geopolitical conflict. The outbreak of this war in 2026 reflects the outcome of long-standing geopolitical tensions. It was rooted in nuclear proliferation concerns, regional rivalries, and ideological conflict. This conflict emerged into a direct interstate war as US-Israel carried out joint strike in Iran on 28 Feb 2026, combining high-intensity air campaigns.

Recently, tensions in the Middle East have escalated beyond proxy conflicts into direct confrontation, raising serious concerns about regional and global stability. What makes this war especially significant is its global implications, influencing not only major powers but also smaller states like Nepal. This essay examines the key incidents, decision-making processes, strategies of major actors, and the broader geopolitical consequences of the conflict.  

2. Evaluation of the decision making porcess

In my view, the decision-making process between the United States and Israel reflects one of the closest and most institutionalized strategic partnerships in contemporary international relations. Their relationship is not only based on shared interests but also on long-standing military, intelligence, and political cooperation. This creates a high level of coordination, especially during crises.

From an analytical perspective, their interaction can be understood through the lens of alliance politics and realism. Israel tends to adopt a more preemptive and security-driven approach, largely because it perceives threats—particularly from Iran—as immediate and existential. On the other hand, the United States, while strongly supportive of Israel, usually considers broader geopolitical consequences, including regional stability, global energy markets, and diplomatic costs.

What I find particularly interesting is the difference in decision-making pace and scope. Israel often acts quickly and decisively, sometimes taking unilateral actions, whereas the US decision-making process appears more layered and cautious, involving multiple institutions and global considerations. Despite this difference, the two countries maintain a high degree of synchronization, especially in intelligence sharing and military coordination.

However, this relationship is not without tension. There are moments where US strategic restraint contrasts with Israel’s urgency. In my opinion, this reflects a classic asymmetry within alliances, where a smaller but more immediately threatened state pushes for action, while the larger power seeks to manage escalation.

Overall, I would evaluate the US–Israel decision-making relationship as highly cooperative but strategically complex. It is strong in terms of trust and coordination, yet shaped by differing threat perceptions and global responsibilities. This dual nature—cooperation combined with occasional divergence—makes their partnership both resilient and dynamic.

3. Strategic Goals of Major Powers and the Shift in American Leadership

Key Concerns and Strategies of Major States

In my view, the behavior of the main actors in this conflict can be best understood through a realist perspective, where each state is primarily driven by its own security and strategic interests rather than moral considerations.

Direct Participants

• United States
  The United States appears to be concerned with maintaining its global leadership and regional influence in the Middle East. Its strategy combines military support to Israel with efforts to prevent full-scale regional escalation. At the same time, it must also consider economic consequences such as oil price shocks and global instability.
• Israel
  Israel’s approach, in my opinion, is largely shaped by its existential security concerns. It tends to follow a preemptive and offensive strategy, aiming to neutralize threats—especially from Iran—before they fully materialize. This reflects a survival-oriented doctrine.
• Iran
  Iran seems to rely on asymmetric strategies, including missile capabilities and proxy networks. Its key concern is regime survival and resisting external pressure. Rather than direct confrontation, it often adopts indirect and prolonged forms of engagement.

Indirect Participants

• China
  China’s response appears cautious and calculated. Its main concern is economic stability and uninterrupted energy supply. It prefers diplomatic solutions and avoids direct involvement, which aligns with its broader global strategy.
• Russia
  Russia seems to view the conflict as an opportunity to expand its geopolitical influence and challenge Western dominance. It is acting as a stabilizing diplomatic bridge, using its unique position to call for a return to international law while protecting global energy markets from total collapse.  
• Gulf States
  These states are primarily concerned with regime stability and economic security. While some may quietly support US actions, they are cautious about provoking Iran directly.

Evaluation of Trump’s Strategic Shift

The shift in the position of Donald Trump from initial confidence to seeking support from Asian countries is, in my opinion, a significant indicator of the complexity of modern warfare.

At the beginning, Trump’s stance reflected a belief in quick and decisive military success, consistent with a strong unilateral approach. However, as the conflict expanded and its costs—both economic and strategic—became clearer, his approach shifted toward burden-sharing and coalition-building.

This change can be evaluated in three ways:

• Realist Adjustment: It shows a pragmatic recognition that even a superpower cannot manage a prolonged, multi-dimensional conflict alone.
• Strategic Limitation: It suggests that the initial assessment may have underestimated Iran’s resilience and the risk of regional escalation.
• Globalization of Conflict: By seeking support from Asian countries, the conflict is no longer regional but increasingly global in its implications, especially regarding energy and trade.

Overall, I would argue that the war reflects a multi-layered strategic competition, where each actor is pursuing its own interests under conditions of uncertainty. Trump’s shift in position highlights an important reality: power alone is not sufficient; cooperation and strategic recalibration are equally necessary in contemporary international conflicts.

4. General Response of East Asian Countries

In my view, East Asian countries have responded to Donald Trump’s proposal with caution rather than full alignment. While many of these countries maintain strong strategic ties with the United States, they are also deeply dependent on Middle Eastern energy supplies and prefer to avoid direct involvement in distant conflicts.

Countries in East Asia appear to be guided by three main concerns:

• Energy security (due to reliance on Gulf oil)
• Economic stability (avoiding disruption in trade and markets)
• Strategic neutrality (not escalating tensions unnecessarily)

As a result, their responses have generally been supportive in principle but limited in practice, focusing on diplomacy, logistics, or humanitarian assistance rather than military engagement.

Japan has taken a measured and cautious stance. While it values its alliance with the United States, it has avoided any direct military commitment to the conflict.

South Korea appears focused on its own regional security challenges, particularly concerning North Korea. It may offer limited logistical or diplomatic support, but avoids diverting attention from its immediate security priorities.

China has clearly positioned itself in favor of de-escalation and negotiation. It opposes expansion of the conflict and calls for peaceful resolution, mainly to protect its economic interests and energy supply chains.

Southeast Asian nations have generally maintained a neutral and non-aligned stance, emphasizing dialogue and stability over involvement.

Overall, I would argue that East Asian countries are responding in a pragmatic and interest-driven manner. While they do not openly oppose the United States, they are unwilling to become directly involved in a conflict that does not align with their immediate national interests.

This response highlights an important trend in international relations: even close allies are increasingly selective in their commitments, prioritizing national interest, economic security, and regional stability over unconditional support.

5. Iran’s Strengths and Weaknesses

Iran’s Strengths

In my view, Iran demonstrates significant resilience despite facing technologically superior adversaries. One of its major strengths lies in its asymmetric warfare capability. Rather than relying on conventional military power, Iran has developed a strategy centered on missiles, drones, cyber operations, and proxy networks, which allows it to challenge stronger opponents in unconventional ways.

Another important strength is its strategic geography, especially its proximity to the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of global oil supply passes. Iran has used this advantage effectively, even disrupting maritime routes to exert global pressure.

Iran also possesses a relatively large and resilient military structure, ranking among the top 20 military powers globally. Additionally, its decentralized “mosaic defense” strategy enhances survivability, allowing it to continue operations even after leadership or infrastructure losses.

Finally, Iran’s ability to conduct information and cyber warfare—including propaganda and influence campaigns—adds another layer to its strategic strength.

Iran’s Weaknesses

However, alongside these strengths, Iran faces several critical weaknesses. Most importantly, it lacks advanced conventional military capabilities, particularly in air power and naval strength, making it difficult to compete directly with countries like the United States or Israel.

Another major weakness is its economic vulnerability. Long-standing sanctions, limited foreign investment, and economic instability have weakened its capacity to sustain prolonged conflict.

Recent developments also show that Iran’s military infrastructure and leadership have been significantly targeted and degraded during the conflict, reducing its operational effectiveness.

Additionally, Iran’s reliance on proxy groups—while once a strength—has become less reliable, as some of these networks have weakened or come under pressure in recent years.

There are also internal challenges, including political divisions and governance issues, which may limit long-term strategic coherence.

Overall, I would argue that Iran’s position reflects a classic case of asymmetric resilience. It is strong enough to resist and impose costs on its adversaries, but not strong enough to achieve decisive military victory.

In my opinion, Iran’s strategy is therefore not to win outright, but to prolong the conflict, increase the cost for its opponents, and maintain regime survival. This makes it a difficult adversary to defeat, even for more powerful states.

6. Likely Nature of the Outcome

In my view, the US–Israel–Iran war is unlikely to end with a clear or decisive military victory for any side. Given the asymmetry of power, the involvement of multiple actors, and the risk of regional escalation, the conflict is more likely to conclude through a negotiated or managed settlement rather than total defeat of one party.

This type of outcome is common in modern conflicts, where prolonged war increases economic, political, and human costs for all sides. I see the end of this war as managed rather than resolved. The core issues—security concerns, regional rivalry, and mistrust—are too deep to be fully settled in a short time.

Therefore, the war may end not with peace, but with a temporary balance of tension, where all sides step back without fully addressing the root causes.

7. Positions of China and India: Balancing in a Multipolar System

Position of China

In my opinion, China has adopted a carefully balanced and pragmatic approach to the conflict. Rather than taking sides, it emphasizes de-escalation, dialogue, and stability. This reflects China’s broader foreign policy strategy of avoiding direct military involvement while protecting its core interests.

A key concern for China is energy security, as it relies heavily on Middle Eastern oil. Any disruption in the region directly affects its economy. Therefore, China promotes diplomatic solutions and may position itself as a potential mediator to enhance its global influence.

At the same time, China also sees the situation as an opportunity to counterbalance US influence globally, but it does so indirectly rather than through open confrontation.

Position of India

Similarly, India has followed a strategic neutrality approach, which I find quite consistent with its foreign policy tradition.

India maintains strong relations with both Israel and Iran:

• Israel is an important partner in defense and technology
• Iran is crucial for energy needs and regional connectivity  

Because of this dual interest, India avoids taking a clear side and instead supports peaceful resolution and stability. Another important factor is the safety of a large number of Indian workers in the Gulf region, which directly influences its cautious stance.

Comparative Evaluation

From my perspective, both China and India are acting as pragmatic and interest-driven powers rather than ideological actors.

• China focuses more on global strategic positioning and economic stability
• India prioritizes regional balance, energy security, and diaspora protection

What is interesting is that both countries avoid direct involvement, yet remain highly engaged diplomatically. This shows a shift in global politics where emerging powers prefer strategic autonomy over alignment.

8. Implications for Nepal: A Small-State Perspective

Economic Impact

In my view, the most immediate impact on Nepal would be economic. As Nepal is highly dependent on imported fuel, any disruption in the Middle East could lead to rising oil prices, which in turn would increase transportation costs and overall inflation. This could directly affect the daily lives of citizens and slow down economic activities.

Impact on Remittance and Labor Migration

Another significant concern is labor migration. A large number of Nepali workers are employed in Gulf countries. If the conflict escalates, it could:

• Threaten the safety of migrant workers
• Disrupt employment opportunities
• Reduce remittance inflows

Since remittance is a major source of Nepal’s economy, this could have serious macroeconomic consequences.

Foreign Policy Implications

From a diplomatic perspective, Nepal would need to maintain a balanced and neutral position. As a country that follows a non-aligned foreign policy, Nepal must avoid taking sides while supporting peaceful resolution through international forums.

At the same time, there could be subtle pressure from major powers, requiring Nepal to act cautiously and strategically.

Supply Chain and Trade Effects

Although Nepal is not directly involved, global disruptions may affect:

• Import prices
• Availability of essential goods
• Trade routes indirectly

This highlights Nepal’s vulnerability to external shocks despite geographical distance.

Strategic and Policy Lessons

In my opinion, this conflict also offers important lessons for Nepal:

• Need to diversify energy sources
• Strengthen economic resilience
• Reduce overdependence on remittance
• Enhance crisis preparedness and diplomacy

Overall, while Nepal is not directly involved in the conflict, it is indirectly but significantly affected through economic, labor, and diplomatic channels. This shows that in today’s interconnected world, even small states cannot remain untouched by major geopolitical conflicts.

9. Conclusion

The US–Israel–Iran war of 2026 highlights the complexity of contemporary international relations, where conflicts are no longer confined to direct military confrontation but are shaped by alliances, strategic interests, and global interdependence. The roles of major actors such as the United States, Israel, and Iran demonstrate how security concerns, power politics, and asymmetric strategies interact in a highly volatile environment.

From Nepal’s perspective, although geographically distant, the war reveals significant vulnerabilities related to energy dependence, remittance economy, and external shocks. It also underlines the importance of maintaining a balanced foreign policy and strengthening economic resilience.

I would conclude that this conflict is unlikely to produce a decisive resolution. Instead, it is more likely to result in a managed and temporary stability, leaving underlying tensions unresolved. This reinforces an important lesson: in today’s interconnected world, both major and small states must navigate conflicts carefully, balancing national interests with global realities.nal interests with global realities.

Authored by Kumar Ghising researcher and public policy analyst.