Is Machiavelli still right? Is the US-Iran tension rewriting power politics?

About five hundred years ago, Niccolò Machiavelli argued that states act not according to moral rules, but based on calculations of power and interest. According to him, the principles of conscience, religion, and morality that apply to individuals could not be applied in the same way to state governance. He argued that when it comes to preserving the existence of the state, one could deviate from traditional moral rules when necessary. Looking at the developments in the Middle East today, it is evident that these views of Machiavelli remain one of the most powerful interpretations of international politics.

The long-standing tension between the US and Iran is shaped more by power balances than by law or universal values. Although the rhetoric used by the parties differs, the methods they employ are largely based on the power politics described by Machiavelli. Aircraft carriers, missile systems, sanctions, and proxy wars are as much an integral part of this struggle as what is discussed at the diplomatic table.

Iran's nuclear program lies at the heart of this power struggle. The Iranian administration views nuclear technology not merely as energy production, but as a guarantee of the regime's security and national independence. The harsh experiences during the Iran-Iraq War, the sanctions imposed by the West, and Israel's regional influence have made the concept of deterrence one of the fundamental elements of state policy in Iran. The article published in the Fars News Agency, which is close to the Revolutionary Guards, in June 2026, explicitly advocating for nuclear deterrence, shows that this security understanding has now become more visible to the public.

The US, however, reads the same developments differently. For the US, an Iran increasing its nuclear capacity is a serious threat not only to Israel but also to Gulf security and the global balance of power. For this reason, sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and military deterrence are used as parts of the same strategy. However, US President Donald Trump's contradictory statements and short-lived ceasefire attempts reveal that the US has not been able to achieve a definitive strategic superiority regarding Iran.

In fact, this picture is one of the clearest examples of the situation defined in international relations literature as the “security dilemma.” While Iran increases its military capacity to protect itself, the US and Israel perceive this as aggression, and every new military measure developed against it further strengthens Iran's threat perception. Ultimately, every step taken to increase security creates new insecurity for the other side.

According to Machiavelli, states tend to constantly expand and strengthen to maintain their power, otherwise they face the risk of weakening and collapse over time. This understanding is clearly seen in Iran's regional strategy. The threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz, the pressure created through the Houthis in Bab al-Mandab, and the increasing security risks in the Red Sea are important parts of this strategy. Today, the fact that global energy markets have become dependent not only on Hormuz but also on Bab al-Mandab increases the importance of the geostrategic trump cards in Iran's hands.

The US response to this is a classic great power strategy. The US Navy's Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf, the military partnerships established with Gulf countries, the central role of Israel in the regional security architecture, and the defense policies of Gulf monarchies reshaped along the US axis all serve the same strategic goal. The fact that some Gulf countries, especially the United Arab Emirates (UAE), define their security largely through their relationships with the US and, increasingly, with Israel, demonstrates the new power balances in the region.

Perhaps one of Machiavelli's most striking observations is that alliances are not permanent. Indeed, in international relations, interests are more decisive than friendships. The unilateral abandonment of the Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) signed in 2015 by the US in 2018, due to changing interest calculations, is one of the most concrete examples of this. Similarly, the relationships that Gulf countries are developing with Israel today are the result of a common threat perception rather than permanent friendships. It would not be surprising for alliances to change when the threat changes.

Discussions conducted over Iran's ethnic structure also constitute another dimension of power politics. Claims have occasionally been raised in some sources that Iranian Kurds could be used in a possible ground operation. However, history has repeatedly shown that external powers can leave local actors alone after using them. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria are the best examples of this. Therefore, even if strategies carried out over ethnic fault lines provide short-term military advantages, they carry the risk of further deepening regional instability in the long term.

Although recent ceasefire attempts may look like a hope for peace at first glance, they actually reflect the efforts of the parties to regroup as a preparatory process for a new struggle rather than a lasting peace. While the US tries to manage rising war costs and pressure from domestic public opinion, Iran has aimed to gain psychological superiority by showing that the regime remains standing. Israel, on the other hand, continues its quest to permanently limit Iran's military capacity. Indeed, the re-escalation of tension shows that in international politics, ceasefires are often not the end of a war, but the beginning of the next conflict.

The developments in the Middle East today are not limited to the conflict between Iran and the US. The strategic relationships that China and Russia are developing with Iran, the new security quests of Gulf countries, the competition over energy corridors, and the security of global trade routes move this crisis to the center of world politics. The issue is no longer just Iran's nuclear program, but on what balance of power the international system will be built in the future.

As a result, the fundamental truth that Machiavelli expressed five hundred years ago seems unchanged. States primarily seek to protect their own security and interests in the international system. Diplomacy is important, but its impact remains limited when there is no military power behind it. Alliances last as long as interests, and legal and moral rhetoric is often used as the ground for the legitimacy of the power struggle.

For this reason, the US-Iran War is not just a war between two countries. It is also one of the current examples showing that international politics is shaped by power balances. If actors focus only on the pursuit of military superiority in the coming period and cannot establish permanent security arrangements that will reduce mutual security concerns, ceasefires in the Middle East may remain temporary and a truly lasting environment of peace may not be established.