Israelo-U.S. Conflict with Iran:  Beyond the Diplomacy of Braggadocio and End of U.S. Global Hegemony

By Bola A. Akinterinwa

International politics is necessarily a conflict system because the international community comprises nation-states considered to be sovereign and equal. Sovereignty is about supreme power or supreme authority. When a nation-state is considered to have national sovereignty, it is not above or below any other nation-state. All sovereign states are at par. This equality does not extend to development capacity, economic or military strength. While the United States can pride itself as the leader of the world in various ramifications, Nigeria or Belgium cannot claim the same pride. There is no disputing the fact that the United States has the biggest defence budget in the world. The U.S. not only has the most advanced technology and the greatest global capacity outreach, but also has the most highly trained personnel. This is the first dynamic of the U.S. diplomacy of braggadocio and its foreign policy attitude. China and Russia are following the lead of the United States in that order.

However, the United States is increasingly becoming drunk under President Donald J. Trump, and therefore, less clairvoyant in its foreign policy dealings with the world. We have no qualms with anyone singing the songs of pride for his or her achievements. There cannot but be qualms when the manifestations of the pride engender the destruction of the pride of others. Besides, killing others for the exclusive purposes of self-preservation and self-interest in international relations is indecent and most unfortunate, but this is precisely what obtains in contemporary international relations. States often have very conflicting national interests and no state wants its own national interests to be subsumed under the interests of others. This is why there is a conflict of interest and why there are conflicts between the United States and Israel, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other. This is why Irano-Israeli relations began with a diplomacy of duplicity in 1948. And more importantly, this is why the quest for international peace and security remains far-fetched and pointing to an end to U.S. global hegemony.

Polemology of Israelo-U.S. Conflict with Iran  

From a polemological approach, Israelo-American conflict with Iran has distant or remote causal factors, accidental causal factors, and immediate causal factors. In many, if not in most cases, the interests of political leaders are taken as national interest and are vigorously pursued as such. Consequently, the Israelo-US conflict with Iran cannot, stricto sensu, be really considered as a reflection of the American or Israeli national interests. The war against Iran is more of a resultant from the whims and caprices of President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The same is true of the Supreme Leader of Iran, the killed Ayatollah Khomeini. Leaders, who often engage more in self-projection than in nation-projection, are generally responsible for global insecurity that has come to characterise international relations.

In terms of remote causal factors, the genesis of the Israelo-United States conflict with Iran can be partly dated to the partitioning of Palestine by the United Nations into two in 1947 and partly to the Ayatollah Khomeini following the 1979 Iranian Revolution. As regards the partitioning of Palestine, the United Nations General Assembly adopted, on November 29, 1947 Resolution 181 which partitioned Palestine, which had been under the British Mandate since the end of World War I. The partitioning plan was quite interesting because of its unfairness and injustice. More important, the plan clearly showed how diplomacy is largely predicated on duplicity, insincerity.

Duplicity wise, the partitioning plan allotted 55-56% of the land to the Jews who only accounted for one-third of the total population, and the rest, 42-43%, to the Arabs. In the eyes of the Arabs, this was most unfair, even though the plan also provided for an economic union between Israel and the Arab State. The Union was to include a customs union and a joint management of infrastructure. Additionally, the plan provided for a corpus separatum, which made the city of Jerusalem and its surrounding areas, including Bethlehem, an international city to be placed under an international administration. The Arabs rejected the partition plan while Israel accepted it. As a result of the controversy, the United Nations came up with the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) to investigate the situation.

What is noteworthy here is that Iran opposed the UN partition plan. Along with Yugoslavia and India, Iran offered an alternative plan according to which a federal state was the solution, as it would enable keeping Palestine as a single unit in which there would be a balanced relationship with the West, the Zionist movement, and neigbouring Arab States. As a result of the disagreement, the first Israelo-Arab war broke out in 1948. Iran was vehemently opposed to Israel but would not only gave a de facto recognition to the new state of Israel but would also serve as the transit point for Jewish refugees seeking to leave the Arab countries and go to the new State of Israel. It is against this background that a polemology of the conflict with Iran is much thought-provoking.

The conflict has raised, on the one hand, the question of existential threat, and therefore, the need for a pre-emptive attack at the level of Israel, and, on the other hand, the question of legitimate self-defence at both the levels of Israel and Iran, on the other. It is useful to note that the problem of existential threat exists because the Arabs wanted to push Israel to the sea or wanted ‘death for Israel. This compelled Israel to also adopt a policy of pre-emptive attack, which involves the taking battles directly to the door steps of the enemy before the enemy can even prepare for an attack.

In this regard, Israel has fought several wars, beginning with the 1948 war, started by 7 Members of the Arab League: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. They were defeated by Israel. Then came the 1967 Six-Day War or the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, which was provoked primarily by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in defence of the Palestinian Arabs. The war lasted from 5 June 1967 to 10 June 1967. Israel’s victory prompted the occupation of the Sinai Peninsula, Gaza strip, West Bank (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. This was the beginning of Israeli occupation of Palestinian Arab land to which the international community has been opposed. As part of an enduring solution to the Israelo-Arab conflict, Israel has been told to return to the pre-1967 war boundaries.

As advised by Von Clausewitz, if you want peace, prepare for war. Israel appears to have actively imbibed this philosophy of Clausewitz by permanently preparing for war and engaging in excessive pre-emptive attacks on perceived enemies. 1973 not only witnessed the Yom Kippur war, but also the October war and the Ramadan war. It was the first Lebanon war in 1982 and second Lebanon war in 2006. The Israelo-Hamas war took place in 2023 while the year 2026 is currently playing host to the Israelo-American war against Iran. Why war against Iran?

The war began with Iranian support for the Palestinian Arabs, especially because of the unfairness in the allotment of the larger part of the Palestinian territory to Israel. Besides, Iran had an alternative proposal, federal system. Iran, which gave support to Israel, as well as gave a de facto recognition to the State of Israel from 1948 to 1979, changed its attitudinal disposition towards Israel after the revolution, contesting American hegemony and Israeli aggressions. In anticipation of possible nuclear attacks by both Israel and the United States, Iran began the development of nuclear capability for self-protection. The United States is vehemently opposed to it. This is the accidental and immediate causal factor of the war with Iran.

Without any whiff of doubt, all the nuclear powers acquired their nuclear capability through competitiveness and cooperation. On attainment of a nuclear power status, they do not want any other state to have the same nuclear status under the whims and caprices that new aspirants are not trust worthy, as it is the case with Iran, or that they may not have the capacity of control in the event of any nuclear disaster. And true, when the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferations Treaty (NPT) was to be done, France and China refused to sign it because they were still making efforts to perfect the intellection processes of their nuclear weapon development. It was after the perfection that they eventually acceded to the NPT. Since then, the so-called Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) are also the Five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council, P-5 (Britain, China, France, Russia, and United States). As NWS or P-5, proliferation of nuclear capability is not tolerated. North Korea is forcefully a nuclear power aspirant, but the United States is against.

In fact, it is in an attempt to permanently contain Iran from developing a nuclear capability that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal, was done in 2015 by the P-5 and Germany. The Iran Nuclear Deal limited the enrichment of uranium by Iran to only 3.67%. It not only reduced Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile but also reduced the number of the operational centrifuges. Iran agreed and complied as rightly reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency and all the signatories to the nuclear deal. However, the United States did not believe the various official reports given and, therefore, opted to withdraw from the agreement in 2018, calling the deal a ‘horrible one-sided deal.’ 

With the withdrawal of the U.S and renewed sanctions, Iran continued with its uranium enrichment to the level of nuclear weapons grade level, especially that the JCPOA itself had its validity come to an end in October 2025, meaning that Iran does not have any treaty obligation to comply with anymore. This is why there are ongoing fresh negotiations. 

Braggadocio and End of U.S. Global Hegemony 

United States’ diplomacy of braggadocio has the potential to be very counter-productive in the foreseeable future: increased animosity towards the United States and decline, if not total loss, in global influence. First, Israel and the U.S. have the potential to win the battles against Iran, but winning the war appears to be more of a dream. Iranians are generally die-hards. It is well known that Iran is sponsoring the Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Hamas in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen and that all of them are opponents of both the Israelis and the Americans. As they are been pushed to the wall, their likely next strategy is turning the nature of the battle and war into jihad and terrorism in which there may not be any open theatre of war. Winning on the battlefield is easier than winning a battle or war that has no known battlefield or where every space is battle field.

Secondly, will Nigeria be supportive of Iran or Israel? As told by the Ambassador of Israel to Nigeria, Michael Freeman, on Friday, 6th March 2026 on Arise News Television, Iran was the country sponsoring terrorism in Nigeria. As he put it, ‘we know that there are certain movements, for example, the Islamic Movement of Nigeria, which is sponsored and backed by the Iranian regime. And this is not me saying this, we’ve seen that documented by the Iranian regime itself. Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader, posted on X his support and his backing. So that’s very open.’ Some observers argued that Nigeria has a policy of non-alignment, and therefore, Nigeria has no business with the Iranian conflict. Some other commentators have it that the statement of the Israeli ambassador was nothing more than a propaganda. Whatever is the case, it is important to reiterate that Nigeria’s policy of non-alignment does not have any negative character but a national interest determinant.

Put differently, the meaning of the policy is that Nigeria will align if Nigeria’s national interest so dictates. If the same national interest does not dictate aligning, Nigeria will not align. In this particular case of war between Israel and Iran, either as a sponsor of terrorism in Nigeria or in other parts of the world, Nigeria’s position cannot but be largely determined by the national interest. But what is Nigeria’s national interest in this case? Nigeria is not only vehemently opposed to the use of terror in settling disputes but has been actively engaged in fighting terrorism. Nigeria is a signatory to several conventions on anti-terror, such as the 1997 Terrorist Bombings Convention, 1999 Financing Convention, and more interestingly, the 1999 OAU Convention on the Prevention and Combatting of Terrorism. Consequently, Nigeria cannot be logically expected to be on the side of terror.

The other side of the coin is Nigeria’s current policy attitude towards the Israelo-Arab conflict. Nigeria is a strong proponent of a 2-State solution to the conflict. Nigeria is also on record to have allowed the Palestinian Liberation Organisation to open its office in Nigeria. Iran is basically against Israel because of this same question of mistreatment of the Palestinians. Iran appears to be defending Palestinian interests more than any other Arab state. As such, Nigeria cannot partner with Israel in sustaining the occupation of Palestinian territory or in disallowing the establishment of a Palestinian State, or in promoting conscious disregard for the many UNGA resolutions on the matter. It is therefore a matter of which question is raised that will determine Nigeria’s position.

Thirdly, in the words of Donald Trump himself, the United States is blessed with the 

‘strongest economy, strongest borders, strongest military, strongest friendships, and the strongest spirit of any nation on the face of the earth. This is, indeed, the golden age of America… Under my leadership, energy costs are down, gasoline prices are down, grocery prices are down, mortgage prices are down, and inflation has been defeated.’ And perhaps more interestingly, President Trump believes that he has ended seven ‘unendable wars’ and probably on this basis, he should have been given a peace noble prize.

Can these achievements prevent the existential threats to Israel? Does the complete neutralisation be helpful to the sustainability of U.S. influence in the Middle East? When the battles are lost and won, can a destabilised Arab region be helpful to the U.S.? What is actually happening is that the destruction of Iran and deepening of conflicts in the region is only paving the way for the Chinese and Russians to settle and replace the United States in the region. Iranians have the potential to borrow a leaf from the Alliance of Sahel States (ASS), members of which withdrew their allegiance from the ECOWAS. The ASS simply declared their former colonial master unwanted. Franco-American military bases were also declared unwanted. In several places in the Middle East, protesters are already talking about the meaninglessness of U.S. military bases in their place. If the American military bases have to be dismantled, will that not create a vacuum for either Russia or China to try to occupy? Even if the Russians and the Chinese do not want to fill the vacuum, can the United States project its influence in an unwanted area?

Good enough, President Trump is recording domestic achievements. Are these achievements helping at the level of U.S. foreign relations? To what extent can U.S. foreign policy be guided by manu militari and Americans will still expect international solidarity on the basis of stick and carrot policy? And perhaps most importantly, the former President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is on record to have always said that ‘Israel must be wiped off the map.’ Now that the former president has been killed during the Israeli airstrikes, will his demise bring peace to Israel?

Additionally, some countries have offered to mediate the conflict but President Donald Trump has responded that there will not be any discussion or a deal before the unconditional surrender of Iran. Does the unconditional surrender obliterate or prevent further animosity vis-à-vis the United States? President Trump also said, thereafter, the United States and its allies will come together to rebuild Iran. What is the essence of destroying to only rebuild? Will a rebuilt Iran be friendly with the United States? In fact, it has been publicly made known on Iran State television that whoever voices support for Israel or for the Israelo-American aggression on Iran shall be sanctioned with death penalty. Iranians have been told that an order will be issued to that effect.

The implication of this is clear. It is a pointer to another civil war in the making. If the U.S. and Israel have to strengthen the opposition to confront the government, there will be a new conflict in the country with the potential of further destabilising the region. The interests of Israel and the United States will become more difficult to protect. With this type of development, can Donald Trump claim to be succeeding internationally? Donald Trump has said that he must be involved in the selection or appointment of the new leader of Iran. Without any shadow of doubt, the U.S. President is going beyond the level of exaggeration. To what extent do the American people believe that an American puppet as leader of Iran can survive in the long run? In the period from 1947 to 1979, Iran was friendly with the U.S. and Israel. From 1979 to date, the contrary is the case. What is the percentage of Iranians opposed to the anti-America and anti-Israel policies of Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran since 1979? If truth be told, when the opposition elements of today become the government tomorrow, will the governmental elements of today not become the new opposition elements tomorrow and the problem continues to recreate itself? 

It has become necessary for President Donald Trump and all Americans to begin to learn that, in spite of Donald Trump’s diplomacy of braggadocio or the greatness and pride of America, the world has completely shifted from Sovieto-American bipolarity and American unipolarity to pluripolarity involving the worlds of the BRICS and the European Union. The United States is no longer the only centre of power. China and Russia, which are next in rank to the U.S. in greatness, are also centres of power that cannot be toyed with. The United States is no longer a role model for democracy and rule of law. Even though Von Clausewitz advised that whoever wants peace should prepare for war, he did not tell us the type of war to prepare for. Preparing for war has a defensive character. Preparing for war only implies readiness for war in the event of unprovoked aggression.

In the context of Israelo-American war on Iran, neither the Americans nor the Israelis can plead the case of legitimate defence as there was no indication of provocation. Negotiations to renew an agreement with Iran on non-enrichment of uranium were still on when Iran was aggressed. Thus, Donald Trump is simply destroying America with his jungle diplomacy. Israel cannot even become the dominant power in the Middle East. If this is how Donald Trump wants to maintain international peace and security with his Board of Peace, the glory of the great American people has been soiled ab initio in a red palm oil.