Russia's interests are served by an isolated Iran that doesn't compete in European gas markets or its Central Asian sphere of influence. In contrast, China would gain from a stable, economically powerful Iran that can maximize its energy output and open its large market to global commerce.

Fears of a US-Iran conflict disrupting oil flows are overstated. Any potential US military action would likely be designed to be 'surgical' to specifically avoid Iran's oil infrastructure, as the administration's priority is preventing economic shocks and energy price hikes ahead of elections.

While Venezuela is a minor oil supplier to China, Iran is a substantial source of crude and heavy oil used for infrastructure projects like asphalt. A regime change in Iran could lead to the country selling its oil to the West instead of China, creating a significant economic and geopolitical destabilization for Beijing.

Protests in Iran, if they disrupt the regime, could halt cheap oil flows to China. This would force China to buy from more expensive, US-friendly markets, strengthening the US dollar's global dominance and isolating anti-Western powers without direct US intervention.

Beyond the immediate conflict, Israeli strategists see a long-term opportunity. If the current regime falls, they hope to restore the strong alliance that existed with non-Arab Iran before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which was based on shared regional interests.

Economic growth is a direct function of the reduction in the price of energy. Nations with access to cheap, locally available energy are almost uniformly wealthy, regardless of their system of governance, while those without it are almost uniformly poor.

The only historically effective method to resolve deep-rooted religious and ideological conflicts is to shift focus toward shared economic prosperity. Alliances like the Abraham Accords create tangible incentives for peace that ideology alone cannot, by making life demonstrably better for citizens.

The public threats of a military strike against Iran may be a high-stakes negotiating tactic, consistent with Trump's style of creating chaos before seeking a deal. The goal is likely not war, which would be politically damaging, but to force Iran into economic concessions or a new agreement on US terms.

For a country dependent on a powerful neighbor like the U.S., the path to a fairer relationship is creating leverage. This is achieved by developing independent infrastructure, like pipelines and LNG terminals, to sell resources to other world markets. With viable alternatives, the country can negotiate from a position of strength, not desperation.