The ongoing U.S.-Israeli military strikes on Iran may be driven by a broader geopolitical calculation tied to Washington’s rivalry with Beijing, according to Middle East analyst Haviv Rettig Gur. In a video analysis titled: “The REAL Reason America Struck Iran,” published by media outlet “The Free Press,” Gur argues that Iran has increasingly become one of China’s most important strategic partners in the Middle East, giving Tehran a critical role in Beijing’s global strategy.
Gur said that if a military conflict were to erupt between the United States and China in the Western Pacific, Iran could pose a “significant threat” to American forces and global energy flows.
RELATED: US and Israeli Strikes Raise Specter of Longer War on Iran
A choke point for Beijing
According to Gur, Iran has evolved into a geopolitical “choke point” aligned with China’s strategic interests. Facing long-standing sanctions and pressure from the U.S. and Israel, Tehran has increasingly turned toward Beijing for economic and strategic support.
Gur noted that China and Iran have signed agreements that could allow Tehran to obtain hypersonic missile technology, potentially enabling it to threaten U.S. naval forces operating near the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which roughly one-quarter of the world’s oil shipments pass. Such capabilities could theoretically allow Iran to disrupt global oil supplies to Western countries.
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
Gur suggested this dynamic mirrors China’s own vulnerability in the Strait of Malacca, a maritime chokepoint where the United States could potentially restrict Chinese energy imports. “In effect, China is trying to create a strategic counterbalance through Iran,” Gur said.
He also pointed out that China has taken advantage of discounted Iranian oil to build an estimated 1.2 billion-barrel strategic petroleum reserve, potentially allowing Beijing to maintain operations for nearly 100 days in the event of a large-scale U.S. blockade.
From this perspective, Gur argued, Iran has become a “forward weapon” in China’s broader strategic competition with the United States. “That,” he said, “is the real significance of this war.”
China hawks react
Gur added that Washington’s strategic community includes a well-organized group of policymakers often described as “China hawks.” These officials, he said, hold significant influence across the U.S. government, Congress, and political establishment. Among them is U.S. Senator Tom Cotton, a prominent advocate of a tougher stance toward China.
According to Gur, discussions about possible U.S. military action against Iran likely centered on the country’s emerging role as a strategic energy and military hub linked to Beijing. “When these people debate whether to take military action against Iran,” he said, adding, “Iran’s role as a geopolitical energy choke point serving China is absolutely central.”
Gur was also asked why U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has not publicly framed the military operation as part of a strategy to counter China. He explained that emphasizing Iran’s history of attacking U.S. personnel and shipping is a more politically acceptable justification.
Tehran has frequently supported proxy attacks against U.S. forces and commercial vessels in the region, making that argument easier to present publicly. Gur compared the situation to Israel’s approach to Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group in Lebanon. “Israel understands that if it wants to confront Iran directly, it must first dismantle Hezbollah,” Gur said.
Similarly, he argued, the United States may view Iran as a strategic obstacle that must be addressed before a potential confrontation with China. “If the United States were fighting China in the South China Sea,” Gur said, “Iran could open another front in the Indian Ocean or drive up oil prices in the Persian Gulf.” He added, “This is part of a grand strategy. If you don’t first eliminate Iran’s threat to U.S. supply lines, you cannot prepare carrier strike groups for operations in the South China Sea.”
At the same time, openly framing military action as part of a confrontation with China would be strategically unwise. “Announcing to a rival superpower that this is part of a war plan against them would be foolish,” Gur said. “It could give them a justification to retaliate.”
A message to Beijing’s partners
Despite Iran’s strategic importance to China, including providing low-cost oil that supports China’s manufacturing sector, Beijing has so far shown little sign of intervening in the conflict.
Gur believes this reflects China’s current assessment that it is not yet ready for a direct confrontation with the United States. He pointed to recent developments in China’s military leadership, including the replacement of several senior commanders, which some analysts interpret as evidence of internal restructuring.
By striking Iran and discussing the possibility of regime change, Gur said the United States is sending a broader geopolitical message. Even countries that align closely with Beijing, by adopting Chinese technology, joining Chinese initiatives, or integrating with Chinese economic systems, may not receive meaningful support if conflict erupts.
“Iran has done everything China asked,” Gur said. “Yet China will not defend Iran, because Beijing is not ready to confront the United States.” He said the signal is likely being noticed across Africa, Latin America, Cuba, and Venezuela, regions where Beijing has expanded its influence.
Russia, which has a defense relationship with Iran, has also remained largely absent from the conflict. Some reports suggest Russian military installations in Syria even temporarily shut down communications systems to avoid being caught in U.S. or Israeli strikes.
“The message,” Gur said, “is that Russia and China are not allies you can necessarily rely on.”
