MidEast conflict, more than meets the eye

The government must have a wider view of the rising tensions among Iran, Israel and the United States, an international relations expert urged while warning that the unfolding crisis should not be reduced to a mere regional flare-up but understood as part of a larger geopolitical contest.

“We can be concerned about it, but at the end of the day, what can we do about it?” When asked about the possible economic and humanitarian fallout of the Middle East conflict on the Philippines, Dr. Renato de Castro, professor of international relations at De La Salle University, said.

Speaking on the DAILY TRIBUNE digital program Straight Talk, De Castro noted that public discourse often casts the confrontation as a simple standoff between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other. In reality, he said, the crisis is driven by deeper strategic calculations that extend far beyond the region.

De Castro said geopolitical pressure following the Cold War shaped US efforts to prevent the emergence of dominant regional powers.

“It’s in the United States interest, since World War II ended, to prevent any regional power from emerging in the Asia Pacific, that’s of course China, in terms of Europe, Russia, and specifically in the Middle East,” he said.

According to De Castro, Washington has long been wary of potential regional power centers in the Middle East, particularly Iran and Iraq.

“Since the Cold War ended, the United States has always looked at two possible regional powers that would emerge. Number one was Iraq, which was eventually obliterated when Iraq was invaded under Saddam Hussein in 2003, and then, eventually, Iran,” he added.

US military actions against Iran, particularly under the Trump administration, reflect a broader strategic agenda tied to global power competition, De Castro held.

“At the end of the day, it has to do with its strategic competition against China. Which I know would also affect us, but the world is simply focused on the regional dynamics, and of course, from the perspectives, especially from the perspectives of the Trump administration,” De Castro pointed out.

The rivalry between Iran and Israel is also rooted in long-standing political and ideological tensions.

According to the professor, Iran’s hostility toward Israel intensified after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when the new regime replaced the Shah of Iran.

Its actions, especially during the 1980s, were primarily focused on supporting its proxy groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, and extending influence in Syria.

Iran also expanded its nuclear enrichment activities after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 and continued developing its missile capabilities.

From the mid-2000s onward, he said, Iran has been building military capabilities that could potentially threaten Israel.

“Since 2004 up to the present, Iran has been developing those capabilities that will enable it to use nuclear weapons against the state [of Israel],” De Castro noted

Speculation rules

A “speculative effect” in financial markets is being experienced as tensions escalate in the Middle East.

De Castro said movements in global oil prices and financial markets are largely being shaped by expectations that the conflict could affect key energy supply routes.

“What we’re experiencing right now is what we often experience every time you have a crisis in the Middle East,” said De Castro. “You always have what I call the speculative effect — the expectation that the global supply of oil will be affected by the conflict.”

Oil markets have reacted sharply. De Castro noted that the global oil supply infrastructure has shifted significantly over the past decade.

He said the Middle East no longer dominates global production the same way it once did, with the United States emerging as the world’s largest oil producer following the expansion of shale production and advances in fracking technology.

“The United States is not actually dependent on Middle Eastern oil. It could tap oil from Canada. It could tap oil from its own strategic reserve,” De Castro explained.

Despite this shift, energy-importing economies remain vulnerable to price volatility triggered by geopolitical tensions. The Philippines, which relies heavily on imported fuel to power its transport and electricity sectors, is particularly sensitive to global oil price swings.

De Castro said the current situation may also reflect broader geopolitical competition between Washington and Beijing, particularly over energy security and access to strategic resources.

“What would happen, of course, will be the flow of oil in East Asia and more significantly to China,” he said, noting that China depends heavily on imported energy to build and maintain its strategic oil reserves.

According to De Castro, Washington’s moves against Iran could also be interpreted as part of a wider strategic calculation aimed at limiting China’s access to Iranian oil supplies.

He described the situation as a “calculated risk,” suggesting that the developments may align with the broader strategic priorities of the current US administration.

“This calculated risk is most likely part of the Trump administration’s agenda,” he said.

For countries such as the Philippines, geopolitical tensions in major oil-producing regions often translate into immediate reactions in energy markets, even if supply disruptions have yet to materialize.

“What we’re seeing is largely psychological,” De Castro said, referring to how geopolitical uncertainty influences global commodity markets.

As tensions continue to evolve, oil-import-dependent economies like the Philippines will remain vulnerable to market volatility, with even speculative price movements potentially affecting domestic fuel costs and broader economic activity.