Israel and Iran (Alignment or Agreement)

There has been much talk regarding the conflict between Iran and the Zionist colony in Palestine. Some have gone so far as to claim that the entire affair is a coordinated agreement between the two powers, and that there is no real conflict between them.

To those who view the Iranian-Zionist conflict as a staged act or a division of roles, I say:

Iran is undeniably a historic state with a Persian nationalist orientation and a Shiite religious identity.

The state of Israel is a functional (proxy) state with a Zionist nationalist orientation and a Jewish religious identity.

Both entities are surrounded by populations that differ from them in both religious sect and ethnicity.

These are undeniable facts, and perhaps these realities led both regimes to align at certain stages of their emergence or stabilization—such as during the Shah’s era, the Iran-Iraq war, and the so-called “War on Terror” as termed by the United States.

However, it is very important to understand that alignment does not mean agreement, and I will give historical examples to illustrate this:

• In 43 BCE, a coalition was formed between: Octavian (later Augustus), Mark Antony, and Lepidus

This was known as the Second Triumvirate, established to avenge Julius Caesar’s assassination. They indeed carried out their revenge, but immediately afterward, Octavian and Antony eliminated Lepidus, and soon after, Octavian and Antony clashed—ending with Antony’s famous defeat.
The point here is that even though the Roman Empire was vast enough for all, the laws of power dictate competition, exclusion, and conflict. Such is the nature of states.

• Italy was once an ally of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the Triple Alliance at the beginning of the 20th century. Despite economic and geographic ties, Italy turned against Austria in 1915—just a year into World War I—attacking from the south and joining the Allies (Britain, France, Russia) through the Treaty of London, having been promised Austrian territories.
• Consider the infamous Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact signed in 1939 between the Soviet Union (Russia) and Nazi Germany, which agreed to divide Poland. One month later, that plan was indeed executed: Germany invaded Poland from the west, and two weeks later, Russia attacked from the east. Yet, just eight months later, Germany launched a devastating war against the Soviet Union, occupying vast areas and nearly reaching Moscow.

The point here: what existed between Iran and the West was not an agreement, but an alignment of interests—and there is a big difference between agreement and alignment. Political parties, for instance, might align on accepting elections as a principle, but still do not agree among themselves. This distinction is crucial in understanding the current conflict and its potential outcomes.

What happened is a clash of interests following a previous convergence. And because there was no formal agreement between them, things became entangled.

Iran dreams of reviving a Persian Empire, recalling the days of Darius I. The path to that dream lies through nearby Arab and Muslim lands such as Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gulf, Syria, and Yemen—all former spheres of influence.

The Zionist colony dreams of building a secure and stable central state in historic Palestine, and perhaps in some surrounding areas as well.

The West, meanwhile, needs both Iran and Israel to maintain control over the Sunni majority, which poses a significant threat to its interests.

But the weakness of the surrounding region has tempted both Iran and Israel to directly confront one another. Now, history is repeating itself—whether as Nazism vs. Communism (both being socialist), or as Mark Antony vs. Octavian (both allies and sons of Caesar). In such a scenario, a natural clash is inevitable.

As I mentioned before, no side will emerge from this conflict as strong as they were. Most likely, the outcome will be the emergence of a third power—stronger than both of the current rivals.

Dr. Khalid Naṣr

Boston 14 June 2025