An unavoidable structural change in Middle East ; a containment of Iran or cooperation with Iran, a new regional security architecture or an economic integration lies ahead?
Only framing grounded in material reality, stripped of Western ideological wish-fulfillment, and informed by a clear-eyed understanding of both geopolitical and economic forces can provide an objective analysis of the Middle East's transformation without the usual distortions.
Every assessment proceeds from
some specific premises accepted as the objective truth. If the premises
for the assessment are wrong, it is
inevitable that the arrived-conclusion will be wrong. The reason for arriving to wrong conclusions
in most cases is due to making an assessment based on the small picture;
the event itself, rather than looking at the big picture; its
ratifications and implications in
general. Part-particular cannot be taken by itself isolated from the
whole-general. Part-particular and whole-general, each is dialectically
connected and mutually affects; compliments or contradicts each other. We can
make correct evaluation of the current
phase of the development based on the known and available data, but can only
speculate on what lies ahead.
An objective analysis
disregarding "what the West wants" and focusing on "what material reality
demands" could set the foundational
pillars on the subject which can be summarized as;
1. It is without a doubt that the
war of US-Israel forced upon Iran brought about the end of the US unipolar era
in the Middle East. Military containment of Iran is logistically
impossible; only cooperation remains as a viable strategic option.
2. The Russia-China-Iran axis is not a "limited" alliance but an existential, structural alignment. Their support is indirect in tactics but total in strategic commitment, anchored in the geography of the Eurasian landmass.
3. Iran has emerged from the
war not as a battered state with internal vulnerabilities, but as a
durable, resilient actor. Its food security is stable, its security apparatus
is intact, and its domestic fractures, contrary to Western narratives, are
not actionable fifth columns.
4. Turkiye is a critical swing
player, whose imperial ambitions in general and in the Caucasus (Zangezur) specific
represent the primary internal friction point within the emerging
multipolar order; a friction point that Russia, through its legal and
operational control, can manage.
5. The nuclear threat
narrative is a psychological operation, not a policy option. Global finance
capital will not permit a suicidal escalation that destroys the circulation
of value. The real weapons of the digital age are economic
disruption (Strait of Hormuz, undersea cables), not nuclear weapons.
6. Regional economic
integration through deepened trade, cross-investments, and institutional
mechanisms offers the only sustainable path to peace. ASEAN's experience
demonstrates that once economic interdependence reaches an irreversible
depth, it becomes a formidable barrier to conflict.
The US Air Campaign Fantasy: A Logistical and Historical
Impossibility
There is no historical precedent
where strategic bombing alone subjugated a nation-state, with Iran's geographic
depth, mountainous topography, and distributed missile infrastructure. The US bombed North Vietnam for years; it
lost. It bombed Iraq from 1991 to 2003;
regime change required a land invasion.
It bombed Afghanistan for two decades; it lost to a peasant militia.
In My article dated April 2025, I
had stated that ;” The war that may be waged against Iran, will actually
be an indirect war against Russia and
China; 1) to test the waters how will they react, 2) an image and damage
control for the world, especially for its allies and proxies, 3) worst case
scenario, Neo-Cons are still under the illusion that Russia and China will
remain neutral.” “Exceptionalist, supremacist fantasy of US will bring
about huge military humiliation to themselves in addition to a deepening
economic crises they will face since the petrol prices will multiply in a
couple days which will reflect itself on the cost increase of every consumer
goods and thus a speedy decrease in the living standards of people in US and
West.” “(1)
Iran is four times the size of
Iraq, with mountain ranges that bisect the country into natural defensive
fortresses. The Pentagon's own wargames (internally leaked) have consistently
concluded that a conventional invasion of Iran would require no less than
1.5 to 2 million ground troops to secure supply lines, urban centers, and
the mountainous border regions with Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US
active-duty military is under 1.5 million total; including logistics, navy, and
air force.
Logistical reality: To
supply even 500,000 troops across the Zagros Mountains, over the Persian Gulf,
or through hostile Pakistani/Anatolian terrain, is a mathematical
impossibility. The US does not have the sealift, airlift, or overland supply
chain capacity. This is not a matter of willpower; it is a matter of physics.
Thus, any US attack is limited to symbolic airstrikes, which Iran has
absorbed for decades and continues to strengthen its deterrence.
“Internal legitimacy” or "Domestic protest-uprising cycles" as a structural loophole of Iran ; a residual ghost of Western analytical wish-fulfillment.
US-Israel wishful thinking
considers heavily on an uprising Iran especially that of Kurds and Balochis. They
present the earlier “protests” as evidence to that. However, as the evidences
surfaced and confessions of US and Israeli officials publicized it has come to
the light that the protests were heavily amplified by CIA/Mossad
psychological operations (the Persian-language satellite channels, the
VPN-penetrated social media bots), and when that external funding and digital
coordination collapsed, so did the momentum.
The Kurds are not a unified
fifth column; they are a fragmented demographic caught between the Turkish
military and the Shia militias in Iraq.
A Kurdish uprising against Iran is structurally impossible without a US
ground invasion, which is off the table.
The Pashtun borderlands
are effectively a "frozen chessboard" where Pakistan's ISI and Iran's
IRGC have a tacit understanding to suppress any US-backed tribal
mobilization. An uprising there would be suicidal and instantly crushed.
Thus, internal legitimacy is
not a military or security loophole. The regime's grip on the security
apparatus is absolute, and the ethnic fractures are managed through a
combination of deterrence and the regional balances..
So, if we strip away that
fantasy, what are the “real” loopholes that remain? They are not political or
instigated; they are geophysical, infrastructural, and structural to the possible
tripartite alliance itself.
Facts and fictions on Iran’s fundamental economic and
political questions
Iran’s Weaknesses as Western
fantasy based claims
The West, especially US-Israel
had the same fantasy and wishful thinking they had for Russia against Ukraine, regarding
Iran. They underestimated Iran’s resiliency and the high likely involvement
of Russia and China in the conflict. I had stated in my article dated April 2025, “The fantasy
of extending Russia and dismantling it through economic sanctions backfired and
made Russia to focus on economic self sufficiency. The war in Ukraine resulted
contrary to their expectations and
turned Russia in to a world
military power with advanced weapons and experienced army. It is admitted even
by the Western experts that Russia’s military industry is producing more in one
year than the entire West combined can.” (1) It seems that the fantasy of US-Israel dismantling
Iran will bring about a similar result; a militarily and economically
strong Iran. Iran will come out of this forced-upon war as a great power in the
region.
The US-Israel and their “analyzers”
argue that it is impossible for Iran to be a great power in the region. They falsify
the facts and present their wishful thinking as facts especially regarding
Iran's food security with fabricated statistics. In reality,
Iran's wheat imports are far lower than they present to be the fact. For the
2025/26 marketing year, import requirements are estimated at approximately 2
million tons, with domestic production planned at around 13 million tons.
Imports account for only a small fraction of their domestic consumption.
This achievement stems from strong domestic production. Iran declared wheat
self-sufficiency in 2024 following a bumper harvest. While production
declined somewhat in 2025, sufficient carryover stocks remain.
With the same fantasy and wishful
thinking they argue that the Zangezur
Corridor is a political and military risk for Iran. The fact is that
Russia possesses pore phan Just "Legal Say"; It has de facto control.
Their arguments on Zangezur is
that it is the most dangerous physical loophole for the Russia-China-Iran
axis, and it involves “Turkiye” directly. Turkiye and Azerbaijan are
aggressively pushing for the Zangezur Corridor to connect the Caspian to
Nakhchivan and mainland Turkiye. This corridor cuts through Armenian territory,
but more critically, it runs directly along Iran's northern border, threatening
to sever Iran's overland access to Armenia and the Eurasian Economic Union
(EAEU). Russia has historically sat on the fence here to maintain good ties
with Baku and Ankara. If Turkiye and Pakistan (backed by Saudi petrodollars)
move to physically enforce this corridor, Iran faces a choice: (a) mobilize the
IRGC to block it, risking a direct confrontation with a NATO-adjacent Turkiye;
or (b) allow it, and watch its northern land bridge to the Caucasus be
permanently bottle-necked by a Turkish-controlled passage. This is a
“geographic” pressure point that no MoU can neutralize, because it is driven
by Ankara's imperial ambitions—not Washington's.
They overlook to Russia's role as
"gatekeeper" in that region. On the Zangezur corridor issue, Russia's
de facto operational control and its legally anchored oversight role
make it an impassable gatekeeper for Turkiye and Azerbaijan. This reinforces my
argument that the US (and Israel) are effectively being "anchored"
and "contained" within the emerging regional framework because Russia
has a legal say on this issue. While it is true that Russia does not have a
formal "legal veto" in the narrow sense, its actual control and
influence are overwhelming: Russia's operational control over Armenia's
railway system: Since 2008, Armenia's railways have been operated by the
"South Caucasus Railway" company, which is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Russian Railways (RZD). This means any railway transit
through the corridor must, operationally, coordinate with Moscow.
In addition there is a clearly
defined statutory oversight role. Clause 9 of the 2020 trilateral ceasefire
agreement explicitly states that the border guard service of the Russian
Federal Security Service (FSB) "shall exercise control over the
transport links." This establishes Russia's statutory role in
supervision and security over the route.
The "corridor" concept
was never recognized by Russia. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has explicitly
stated that the term "Zangezur Corridor" was never discussed within
the framework of the trilateral agreements. This characterization is crucial; it
means that any unilateral action to define this passage as a
"corridor" lacks legal and political legitimacy without Russia's
recognition. Without Russia's substantive participation and tacit approval,
this project cannot move forward.
So, the Western arguments about
fundamental Iran’s Weaknesses are fantasy based, wishful claims.
The Israeli Nuclear "Suicide Bomb" Delusion
The "nuclear option"
narrative is a product of Hollywood and Western think-tank parlor games, not
material reality. Israel is a hypersensitive, hyper-dense territory. A single
Iranian conventional missile barrage (not nuclear) targeting its power
grid, desalination plants, and airbases, would cripple the state of Israel
within 72 hours. Iran's missile arsenal is deeply dispersed and hardened.
If Israel were to detonate a
nuclear device over Iranian territory, it would not "wipe out"
Iran. Iran is 1.6 million square kilometers. A 100-kiloton warhead destroys
a city, not a country. However, the “retaliation”—even conventional—would
obliterate Israel's concentrated infrastructure.
The Class Analysis of a
student of Marxism-Leninism, one gas to correctly identify the ultimate
arbiter: global finance capital. The Israeli elite are not
independent actors; they are deeply integrated into Western financial
markets, tech conglomerates, and trans-national supply chains. A nuclear
exchange terminates the “circulation of capital” in that entire region. The
bond markets would crash. The insurance industry would collapse. The
London-New York financial corridor would freeze.
The transnational capitalist
class does not commit class suicide. They will not permit a nuclear
exchange that evaporates their asset portfolios and destroys their primary
geopolitical playground. The "nuclear threat" is a rhetorical
bludgeon for domestic consumption, not a policy option.
The "More Effective Than Nukes" Digital Age Weapons
What most mainstream analysts
miss or disregard entirely is that leverage is no longer measured in
megatons, but in nodes of global circulation. It is the means and
methods of the circulation of capital, control of its flow and guaranteeing its
smooth running..
Closing the Strait of Hormuz: This
is Iran's "nuclear option" in economic terms. 20-30% of the world's
seaborne oil passes through that choke point. A closure would spike global oil
prices to $200-$300/barrel within days, triggering a global recession that
devastates the US and European financial systems “before” any Iranian missile
hits a US target. This is asymmetrical deterrence at its most materialist.
Cutting undersea internet
cables: The Red Sea, the Mediterranean, and the Persian Gulf are dense with
submarine fiber-optic cables carrying 95% of global intercontinental data.
Iran, with its naval and proxy capabilities, has the physical capacity to
disrupt these cables. The resulting financial market paralysis, supply chain
breakdown, and communications blackout would inflict more damage on the US/EU
economies than a dozen nuclear warheads—without triggering a radioactive
retaliation that ends capital accumulation.
These are weapons of
circulation disruption, not annihilation. They are perfectly aligned with
the Leninist understanding that imperialism is driven by the necessity to
secure markets, resources, and “transit routes”. Disrupt the transit
routes, and the imperial center asphyxiates without firing a single ballistic
missile.
World War III is Already Here—Just Not as Hollywood Imagines It
The most critical synthesis that
should be made is related to the WW3 fear mongering rhetoric. The bourgeois
media screams "WW3" every time a missile is fired, because they
need spectacle to sell advertising. But in material reality:
The difference from the
previous ones, WW3 is a hybrid one due to the technological developments:
It is fought in currency wars (de-dollarization, BRICS+), in trade
blockades, in cyber-infiltration (Stuxnet vs. Iranian revenge hacks), in
information warfare (AI-driven deepfakes, psychological operations), and
in proxy theaters (Ukraine, Gaza, Yemen, Sudan).
The US is already losing this
WW3: It has lost the financial monopoly (gold, yuan, and digital currencies
are eroding the dollar's reserve status). It has lost the technological monopoly
(hypersonics, AI, and satellite networks are now multipolar). It has lost the
moral monopoly (the Global South clearly sees the double standards).
The nuclear saber-rattling of
the US-West is a cover: It is used to frighten the European vassal states
into accepting higher military spending, to justify domestic surveillance
states, and to maintain the illusion of US relevance. It is a “superstructure”
phenomenon, not a “base” phenomenon. The base-the mode of production and the
circulation of capital is already reorganizing around the Eurasian
landmass.
In my April 2024 article I had made a simplified
comment on the use of nuclear weapons “ Peoples in general have nothing to
lose but the Finance Capital who owns or at least have a large
stake in the banks, most large industries, information, trade, agriculture,
trade transaction technologies and have stake on every sector of life will
inevitably be the ultimate loser. A destructive nuclear war where the meaning
and function of money disappear, it will mean the end of the
“powers” and the use, exchange of money. Simply put, the end of the
Finance Capital and its power. If they survive individually, they will be
transformed in to unskilled laborers in a world where money means
nothing but food and survival means everything. Are the members
of the finance capital so stupid to let a couple of bureaucrats make a
decision for the world they control and
dominate? That decision is an existential one not only
for the members of Finance Capital, but for the rest of the industrialists who
live a comfortable life.” (2)
So the rhetoric of the use of
nuclear weapon as a fear mongering is a threat-bluff to subjugate the
non-nuclear countries used by the nuclear powered countries in the interest of
the financial military-industry to extract and redirect the tax payers
money from social benefits to armament.
Role of China and Russia in the war
Iran's resilience has been
underestimated by almost all. Unlike Syria, Iran's ability to maintain food
security under maximum pressure demonstrated that it possesses far greater
strategic depth and endurance than commonly assumed. This makes it a more
reliable, more "durable" strategic partner for Russia and China.
Iran and Russia are not operating from a position of passive vulnerability.
They hold solid strategic foundations and the initiative. This serves as
powerful supporting evidence that the era of US unipolar dominance is ending
and a multipolar order is taking shape.
The Western wishful framing of
"limited" support by Russia and China is another concept
manipulation and directed at creating false realities. That phrasing carries a
residual Western bias, assuming Washington’s pressure is the central variable. The
structural reality is that Iran is the geographic and geopolitical keystone
for the Eurasian landmass. For Russia, it secures the Caspian flank, the
Caucasus corridor, and the Persian Gulf outlet. For China, it is the
overland bridge to the Levant and the ultimate guarantor of energy routes that
bypass the Malacca Strait. To lose Iran is to have the entire SCO and
BRICS+ project bisected. Their backing is not "limited".
It is existential and total, albeit tactically “indirect” to maintain
plausible deniability and avoid a direct Article-5 style clash.
Studying the MoU clearly
indicates this total but indirect involvement of Russia and China. Placing the "sovereignty
of Lebanon" and "Israel’s withdrawal from South Lebanon"
“before” the nuclear file is a textbook display of China’s Go strategy: Surround the board. You
neutralize the periphery (Hezbollah’s operational security, Syrian territorial
integrity) before attacking the central point (the nuclear dossier). The US
is left with moving single pieces
while the board is being encircled. It is a move in Russia’s Chess strategy: You lock the
opponent’s pieces (Israel/US) in a defensive posture via multiple
threats (Lebanon, Syria, the Strait of Hormuz) before you execute the endgame
on the nuclear question. The MoU is a great example of Chess and Go cultural
and strategic thinking against the bluffing "poker culture" thinking
and clear cut indication of their
“total” involvement. By deferring the nuclear question to the end, they
have left the US with a loaded gun: the snapback mechanisms and the threat of
tactical strikes on nuclear facilities. The US is currently playing Poker—they
have lost the board, but they still hold the "nuclear
proliferation" card.
The Current Situation in the Middle East: A Paradigm Shift from "Containment" to "Integration"
The shift from "containing
Iran" to "cooperating with Iran" is precisely the real-world manifestation
of the above theory. Middle Eastern states are advancing this process at an
astonishing pace:
Iran's Proactive Initiatives (undoubtedly
with huge assistance from Russia and China) is an important step for
economic integration-trade. Iranian leadership has explicitly identified
economic integration as central to regional security and has proposed
the establishment of a "Muslim West Asia Dialogue Association"
(MWADA). This initiative directly targets the core pain points of regional
economic integration: fragmented trade networks, the absence of regional
banking and payment mechanisms, and excessive dependence on external
markets.
Economic integration requires Pragmatic
Cooperation Among Regional Powers. Iran-Turkiye-Saudi Triangular
Interaction, high-level exchanges among the three have become frequent. Turkiye's Foreign Minister has
explicitly called for enhanced cooperation with Iran on trade, energy, and
regional security. Trade between Iran and Turkiye grew by 59% over nine
months, and with Iraq by 35%.
Conflicts among the regional
powers; In my article dated
April 2025 I stated that “ It is true that Turkiye is heavily dependent on US
economically but as far as political independence is concerned, Turkiye has
more political independence than
most of the European countries in their relations with US. That’s why a conflict
between Turkiye and Israel in so many ways will be an indirect conflict
between US and Turkiye. It is not a question of if but at what degree the
conflict between Israel and Turkiye will be.” As Israeli officials publicly
stated the “conflict” between Israel and Turkiye is an unavoidable one which
will prevent any adventure of Turkiye against Iran, but will bring them closer
to each other.
Turkiye-Saudi Axis: The
two countries are shifting from past confrontation towards "economic
cooperation and stability." This cooperation is seen as key to de-escalating
regional conflicts and bringing prosperity.
Pakistan's Mediating Role:
In facilitating the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Pakistan's role
demonstrates that when faced with the prospect of devastating conflict,
regional states have the capacity to choose restraint, communication, and
diplomacy.
Israel’s loosing military power
and isolation from the world; “The existence of Israel the way it is, is a
questionable subject being discussed by so many political experts. It’s economy
is in ruin, it’s “military might “ has
been exposed to be a fiction including
its air force which successfully used
against the small countries with no air defense, but failed miserably
against Iran.” (3) If we add the fact that Israel is becoming and expendable
one rather than exception for the Finance Capital, It is hard to imagine Israel
to be playing a major role in the region against Iran and Turkiye.
“People living with perspectives,
fantasies, and narratives of the unipolar world order times, lacks the ability
to see the facts of the new multi polar world order. So many countries in the
world fighting for their political independence, taking active neutral stands,
and finding courage to dismiss the threats of US.
Developing countries are looking for and forming new economic and
strategic alliances, developed countries looking for opportunities
for sphere of influence. Türkiye with its military industrial complex and
strong military power, aggressively seeking to enlarge its
sphere of influence. That fact alone indicates that Turkiye will not
hesitate getting into a conflict; for one, war is the best way to distract the
population from all the economic hardship, injustice,
corruption, oppression, and exploitation going on within its
borders.” (3)
Despite all the false narratives
about Israel’s winning the war against Hamas, Hizballah and Houthis, Israel
is collapsing economically, militarily, and strategically. Israel
hardly standing on its feet with the immense support of US. Israel has been
trying very hard to draw the US into a war with Iran. A war most likely which
could bring about the destruction of Israel. Israel, with
its current weak condition is ready to be “falling at the table of the
wolves”. Even his long time Arab alliances are waiting for
Israel to fall at the dinner table. Especially the elites of Turkiye, the
“hungry wolf” is waiting for the right opportunity and preparing for it.
Whether US-Israel attack Iran or not, contrary to all the
narratives, Israel’s situation and condition is desperate and in
despair. Conditions for a new partition of and/or balance of
powers in the Middle east is on the horizon.” (3)
Consequences of the defeat of
US Israel; In my article dated June 2025, I stated that “US has
acknowledged the fact that Israel could carry out neither its own nor
US's strategic goals. Contrary, Israel is being defeated and dragging
the US with it. Israel needed to be saved from destruction and US
Iran overt war had to be shifted to its covert form. The developments had
proved that the expectation of uprising by Azeris, Kurds,
Baluch, and other jihadist proxies was utopic, needed more covert
operations to bring it to a mature level. “
However; “ We should admit the fact that US and especially
Israel is unmatched in strategy and tactics in the use of
“soft power”; in the field of propaganda , manipulation of people's point of
views on any given issue, distraction of their attentions, and for manufacturing
consent for their illegal, unjust, and criminal actions. (4)
Despite that factor, the strategic
defeat and relative decline of US influence created a historic
opportunity for regional states to construct a new order through their
own economic interactions. That is the Regional economic integration through
deepened trade, cross-investments, and institutional mechanisms that can
offer the only sustainable path to peace. ASEAN's experience demonstrates
that once economic interdependence reaches an irreversible depth, it
becomes a formidable barrier to conflict.
As an example; The ASEAN Mirror- How Economic Integration Forged Peace?
ASEAN is a classic case study
validating the "economy promotes peace" theory. Its success
offers direct lessons for the Middle East:
Core Logic of ASEAN: ASEAN
provides member states with "regional solidarity, economic development,
market access, and security guarantees." By tying the economic interests
of all states together, any internal conflict becomes a threat to the entire
community. Malaysian experts explicitly note that countries like Vietnam, by
strengthening cooperation in tourism, logistics, food security, and energy,
contribute to ASEAN's peace, stability, and development.
It’s Institutional Mechanisms:
ASEAN has established concrete crisis-response mechanisms, such as the
"ASEAN Petroleum Security Agreement" and the "ASEAN+3 Emergency
Rice Reserve," to buffer external shocks (such as conflicts in the Middle
East). Upgrades to the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA) have also
introduced Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, directly serving
conflict mitigation.
Despite the bright prospects, it
is crucial to recognize that economic integration is not a panacea:
1. Political Trust is a Prerequisite:
Economic cooperation is the "fruit," not the "root."
Without a basic level of political trust, economic ties can instead become
instruments of coercion.
2. The Shadow of External Intervention:
The Middle East has historically been an arena for external great-power
rivalry. Any regional integration effort is vulnerable to interference
and disruption by outside forces.
3. The Dilemma of Benefit Distribution: How
the dividends of integration are fairly distributed is key to sustaining
cooperation. If some states perceive themselves as losing out, it may
paradoxically
Regional economic integration is
the only viable path for the Middle East to move beyond the logic of "containment
and confrontation" and toward autonomous stability. It
constructs a community of shared interests where all parties are deeply
interdependent; "one loses all, one wins all."
The ASEAN experience has
demonstrated that while the process is fraught with challenges, once economic
integration reaches an "irreversible" depth, it can become the
most solid foundation for maintaining peace. For the Middle East,
undergoing its historic transformation, the journey from "economic
cooperation" to "strategic mutual trust" and finally to
"lasting peace" is the correct path; arduous, but essential.
The most critical strategic
question of the current conjuncture is how does "regional economic
integration", more precisely deepened economic relations and
cross-investments, function as a mechanism for prevention of conflict.
The Middle East is undergoing a
profound power realignment. The relative decline of US influence creates a
historic opportunity for regional states to construct a new order through their
own economic interactions. The core logic of this process is: transforming
fragmented, externally dominated economic exchanges into a deeply
intertwined, interest-sharing regional network, such that the cost of any
large-scale conflict becomes unbearable.
If we take the ASEAN as a reference case, here is an
analysis of how this mechanism can operate in the given region.
The transmission mechanism from
economic interdependence to conflict prevention operates through
three primary channels:
1. Re-calculation of Costs and Benefits:
When states hold significant cross-investments, energy partnerships, and
infrastructure projects, launching a conflict means destroying these shared
interests. The economic cost of war will far outweigh any potential gain. A
region that is "too prosperous to burn" significantly reduces the raw
incentives for internal conflict.
2. Creating a Shared Agenda Beyond Ideology:
Shifting the focus from "East West dominant ideology" to "livelihood
economics" can dilute sharp political disagreements and create
pragmatic space for dialogue. In order to protect common economic
achievements, states develop strong motivations for cooperation.
3. Building Crisis Communication and
Management Mechanisms: Economic integration is typically accompanied by
institutionalized communication platforms (joint committees, regular summits).
These mechanisms serve as "safety valves" during periods of tension,
preventing misjudgment and loss of control.
Conclusion
An objective analysis
disregarding the Western narrative and
propaganda and focusing on the question
of the " demands of material reality " could answer to question of whether the strategic power void emerging in Middle East will create a new strategic
alliance with the aim of “containing” Iran or “economic integration” with Iran.
Stalin had stated that ; “as
regards the aggressive countries, who have already reorganized
their economy on a war footing, they, because of the intense
development of their war industry, are not yet experiencing a crisis of
overproduction, although they are approaching it. This means that by the time
the economically powerful, non-aggressive countries begin to
emerge from the phase of crisis the aggressive countries, having
exhausted their reserves of gold and raw material in the course of war fever,
are bound to enter a phase of very severe crisis.” (5) This is exactly the current situation in the
world; the aggressive countries like US-West-Israel depleting their military
arsenal with unending wars, relying solely on finance with no significant
industry and industrial capacity, becoming “consumer” societies “entering a
phase of very severe crisis.”
Considering the critique of
Bakunin and assessment of Engels all the way Back in 1877 ; “we see absolutely
clearly that it is not by any means true that “the
primary must be sought in direct political force and not in any indirect
economic power”. On the contrary. For what in fact does “the primary” in
force itself prove to be? Economic power, the disposal of the means of
power of large-scale industry.” (6)
The concrete fact is that the war of US-Israel forced upon Iran
brought about the end of the US-Israel’s unchallenged military dominance
in the Middle East while severely pushing their economies in crises. Military
defeat and containment of Iran has
become economically and logistically impossible leaving only the cooperation
as a viable strategic option. One of the most important factor is the “alliance”
of Russia-China-Iran which is not a
"limited" alliance but an existential, structural one. The
other factor is that despite all the bombing in addition to the existing
economic sanctions, Iran has emerged from the war not as a battered state with
internal vulnerabilities, but as a durable, resilient actor. There is no
"military loophole" left for the US-Israel axis. The only remaining
variables are: can US finance capital pivot fast enough to accept a
"cooperation with Iran" model before it is completely locked out of
Eurasian energy and transit corridors, will the internal friction between
Russia's urgent chess moves and China's patient Go strategy destabilize the
Eurasian alignment before the US fully retreats. But on the core question—military
containment is dead; cooperation is the only material reality left—you have
closed the case with Marxist clarity. There is no "attack Iran"
option on the table; there is only a negotiation from weakness, masked as a
"strategic pause."
Turkiye as a critical swing
player with imperial ambitions represents the primary internal friction
point within the emerging multipolar order in the region. Turkiye emerges as
a primary filler of the void alongside Iran. Turkiye is not a member of the
Russia-China-Iran strategic triangle; it is a NATO wildcard with imperial
ambitions especially in the Caspian and Central Asia. Russia needs Turkiye for
the TurkStream gas route and to limit NATO's Black Sea expansion. China needs Turkiye
for the Middle Corridor of the Belt and
Road. However, Turkiye’s neo-Ottoman outreach in Syria, Iraq, and the Caucasus
directly clashes with Iranian and Russian red lines. However, weighing the cost benefit ratio of a
conflict with Iran, Turkiye’s interests will have to be more in line with
cooperation and economic integration.
As I have noted in my various
articles since 2003, the nuclear threat narrative is a psychological
operation, not a policy option. Destroying the circulation of value is
never in the interest of Global finance capital and thus it will not permit a
suicidal act of nuclear weapon use between the superpowers. The real weapons of the digital age are
economic disruption like in the case of Strait of Hormuz and/or destruction of undersea communication cables,
not nuclear weapons.
The logical alternative for
all the parties except Israel (as long as they have the strong goal of
Greater Israel) remains to be a regional economic integration through deepened
trade, cross-investments, and institutional mechanisms which can offer the only sustainable path to peace.
ASEAN's experience demonstrates that once economic interdependence reaches an
irreversible depth, it becomes a formidable barrier to conflict.
The (intended) formation of Pakistan-Saudi-Turkiye
"Axis" is a complex, decentralized defense program, it is not a tightly
packed military formation which aims to be a power alliance filling the void in
the region. But from a Russian-Chinese perspective, this axis is deeply
problematic. Pakistan is heavily aligned
with China, Saudi Arabia is an energy competitor to Russia, and Turkiye is a
geopolitical rival to both Russia and Iran in the Caucasus. Saudi Arabia’s
participation in this "axis" is purely tactical. Riyadh is
terrified of a US withdrawal, but it is “equally” terrified of Iranian
revolutionary ideology. If Iran, backed by Russia/China, demands that this
new regional alliance renounce US defense pacts entirely, Saudi Arabia will
balk. The Saudis are looking for a “multipolar umbrella”, not a complete
relocation of their security from Washington to Beijing.
Although the “economic
integration” is the only viable alternative, one should not assume that
this "regional power alliance" will smoothly collaborate with Iran.
The economic rivalry could derail the whole "economic integration"
thesis. The "cooperation" with Iran will not be as a friendly
embrace, but as a compulsory strategic merger forced upon the region
by the collapse of the US dominance. In the final analysis, It would be an
alliance that is inherently unstable because Turkiye, Russia, China, and
Iran all have different social, economic, and final goals. Cooperation is a tactic for
survival; long-term hegemony or sphere of influence is the goal
for all these type players.
Erdogan A
June 24,2026
Notes
(1) Erdogan A, War against Iran;
a prelude to war against China?”
(2) Erdogan A, On the likelihood
of a Nuclear war
(3) Erdogan A, Emerging conflict
between Israel and Turkiye ; how far it can go?
(4) Erdogan A, US-Israel war
against Iran; another failure of Neo-Cons due to their illusions
(5) Stalin, Report on the Work of
the Central Committee to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.)
(6) Friedrich Engels Anti-Dühring
"Theory of Force"
.jpg)
