Power, Oil, and War: A Mearsheimer Realist View of the Iran–Israel Conflict

How Geopolitical Theory Explains the Volatility Beneath Middle Eastern Oil Markets

Introduction: A War Beyond the Headlines

As Americans, we like to believe that we’re always fighting for the greater good. Whether it was the battle against communism or today’s efforts to “spread democracy,” we often assume that our foreign policy is grounded in virtue—that we’re the heroes standing against chaos, tyranny, and injustice.

I used to believe that, too.

Growing up in the U.S., I was raised with an optimistic view of America’s role in the world. But the deeper I studied geopolitics, the more that perspective shifted. I began to realize that international conflicts aren't just about ideology—they’re about power. And when I combined that geopolitical lens with my knowledge of oil and gas, the picture sharpened even further: fossil fuels aren’t just commodities. They’re weapons. Leverage. Tools of statecraft in a global game where peace is often a convenient narrative, not the true objective.

This is why I view the Israel-Iran conflict differently. Beneath the headlines, beneath the outrage, lies a deeper structure—a structure Mearsheimer’s offensive realism helps decode. It’s not about good versus evil. It’s about survival, dominance, and energy. And if you're an investor in this space, ignoring that reality means misunderstanding the very foundation of market risk.

📩 Want deeper insights like this delivered weekly?
Subscribe to PetroSymposium for geopolitical oil analysis, valuation models, and investor strategy notes.

---

Mearsheimer’s Realism and the Structure of Anarchy

Mearsheimer, one of the leading realist thinkers of our time, argues that the international system is anarchic—not chaotic, but lacking a central authority. In this system, great powers seek regional hegemony and often clash with others pursuing similar ambitions. The pursuit of survival drives states to maximize power.

When I first encountered Mearsheimer’s realism, I found it almost too cynical. No ideals? No morality? But the more I studied energy geopolitics—the deals, the betrayals, the power plays—the more I saw its accuracy. It’s unsettling, but also clarifying.

Applied to the Middle East:

• Israel has long acted as a status quo power, deeply concerned with existential threats and regional security.

• Iran, since the 1979 revolution, has pursued revisionist objectives—extending influence through proxy groups in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen.

• The United States has historically played the role of offshore balancer and occasional mediator, but with a clear strategic tilt in favor of Israel. While it has attempted diplomacy at times, its military aid, intelligence support, and UN Security Council vetoes complicate its image as a neutral actor.

This realist logic leads to confrontation: two regional powers vying for dominance in the same strategic neighborhood.

---

Oil as Power: Energy in the Realist Playbook

Within the realist framework, natural resources like oil are not merely commodities—they are strategic instruments of power. Oil enables global market access and serves as a potent tool of diplomacy. Control over hydrocarbons enhances a state's leverage, especially in asymmetric relationships.

This is clearly evident in petro-states like Venezuela under Hugo Chávez, where oil wealth was instrumentalized to pursue geopolitical goals. Chávez used PDVSA not just as a revenue engine, but as a political weapon—funding domestic populism, securing regional alliances, and confronting U.S. influence. The breakdown of U.S.–Venezuela relations eventually resulted in Chevron’s licenses being revoked—then reinstated—not due to market conditions, but geopolitical recalibrations.

I’m a firm believer that oil is inseparable from geopolitics. Anyone serious about understanding the oil and gas industry must also understand the geopolitical structures in which it operates—how nations define interests, forge alliances, and assert power. While general investors may not need to track every bilateral friction, the serious petroleum analyst or energy strategist must internalize this.

I didn’t always think this way. There was a time I believed that market fundamentals alone could guide intelligent investment. But energy has its own gravity—one that bends around power. And once you see that, you can’t unsee it.

---

The Logic of Escalation: Preemption, Deterrence, and Fear

Israel’s strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure and Iran’s asymmetric responses are not ideological—they are strategic. Realist interpretation reveals:

• Israel aims to maintain military superiority and deny Iran a nuclear breakout.

• Iran leverages asymmetric tools—proxies, cyberwarfare, tanker disruptions—to balance Israeli capabilities and raise costs.

John Mearsheimer has been explicit in his analysis: he argues that Israel’s objectives are twofold—to destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions outright, and to provoke or pressure the United States into joining the confrontation. In his view, Israel recognizes it cannot decisively win this type of regional war on its own and remains heavily dependent on U.S. military aid, intelligence, and diplomatic cover.

It’s not easy to accept that Israel—so often framed as a bastion of Western alignment—is actively trying to pull the U.S. into a war. But when you step into the realist frame, the logic becomes painfully clear. Israel knows it can’t win alone. And Washington is its strategic anchor.

This reality should prompt serious reflection among North American investors. If the U.S. is drawn into a broader Middle Eastern war—intentionally or otherwise—the ripple effects across oil, defense, and emerging markets will be substantial. Energy strategies, portfolio exposures, and geopolitical assumptions must be recalibrated with this scenario in mind.

---

Great Power Shadows: The Return of Multipolarity

Mearsheimer warns that multipolarity raises the risk of conflict. Today’s world is no longer unipolar:

• China maintains strategic relations with Iran.

• Russia works with both Iran and Israel in Syria.

• The U.S., distracted by domestic challenges and pivoting toward Asia, no longer dominates regional diplomacy.

In this context, external powers fail to restrain regional actors, giving rise to more autonomous and assertive behaviors. The Israel-Iran confrontation is precisely such a case.

---

Why This War Is Different

Middle East flashpoints are not new—but this conflict marks a shift:

• It targets core infrastructure like Iranian nuclear sites.

• It involves advanced, intentional military signaling.

• It occurs in a strategic vacuum—with no credible mediator active.

This isn’t tit-for-tat. This is a test of power in a regional system lacking constraint.

---

Strategic Spillovers: The Oil Market in a Realist World

Though this piece centers on geopolitics, oil markets are inseparable from regional power dynamics. Realists argue disruptions are not accidental—they follow strategic logic.

• A threat to the Strait of Hormuz is a threat to global energy flows.

• Investors often fixate on physical supply—but perceived intent and capability matter more.

• Brent surged not due to loss of barrels, but due to strategic tension. When power is threatened, markets respond.

---

Investor Takeaways: Read the Power Map, Not Just the Price Chart

I know it’s tempting to tune out geopolitics when you’re managing a portfolio. Headlines move fast, and nuance is hard to price. But I’ve made that mistake before—thinking markets were rational and insulated. They’re not.

Volatility is not noise—it’s signal. And realism is the decoder.

If you’re an energy investor, you can’t just model barrels—you have to model ambitions. Read maps, not just reports. And listen to what power is trying to say.

---

Conclusion: The New Age of Power Politics

I used to think geopolitics was about diplomacy, ideals, and compromise. But over time, I came to see it for what it often is: a brutal game of survival, leverage, and power. The Israel-Iran conflict isn’t just a flare-up in a faraway land—it’s a case study in how nations behave when their core interests are on the line. It’s not about who’s “right.” It’s about who can assert dominance in a region where energy, ideology, and existential fear all collide.

What changed my mind wasn’t just theory—it was watching how energy markets respond to force, not fairness. Watching how oil becomes a bargaining chip, a pressure point, a justification. Watching how allies enable escalation, not restraint. And most of all, realizing that democracies aren’t exempt from this behavior—they just tell a better story.

Mearsheimer’s realism might seem cold, but it’s clear-eyed. It strips away the mythology and makes us confront the uncomfortable truth: the global order is driven by hard interests, not high ideals. And for energy investors, this is more than a theory—it’s a framework for survival in markets that move with war, not just weather.

This isn’t about being cynical—it’s about being honest. Because if we’re going to navigate this world wisely, we need to stop pretending that peace is always the plan. More often than not, power is.

We are now living in a multipolar world—one where no single nation, not even the United States, can bomb its way back to dominance. The illusion that military action alone can reset the balance of power is dangerously outdated. And for investors, this demands a sharper lens. It's naïve to believe that war will simply drive prices up and lead to sustained investment prosperity. Short-term gains can easily become long-term tragedies. In a world defined by complexity, confrontation, and competing centers of power, strategy—not sentiment—must lead.

---

🎯 Energy isn’t just about barrels — it’s about balance, power, and global influence.
If this lens on geopolitics and oil markets sharpened your perspective, consider subscribing to the premium edition of PetroSymposium.

---