The Truth About the Middle East Situation: How the Caucasus Region Became the Focal Point of the US-Russia-Turkey Power Play

The U.S. rejection of Iran’s negotiation letter may seem like a tough stance, but behind it reflects not just rigidity, rather a rational calculation amid complex geopolitics. Iran’s refusal to open the door to negotiations essentially traps it in a dilemma of both advancing and retreating. The U.S.'s strategic intent is very clear: use negotiations as a pretext to gradually pressure Iran into abandoning its defensive capabilities. Once Iran agrees to freeze its nuclear program, open facilities for inspection, and give up ballistic missiles, the U.S. will hold the absolute initiative. At that point, military action would have the least cost and the greatest benefit. Currently, Iran’s ability to maintain its position relies solely on its ballistic missile system — a deterrent tool and its last bargaining chip. If Iran shows willingness to negotiate, it risks being on the defensive and vulnerable to attack.

The Strategic Deployment Behind the Eastward Movement of the USS Ford

U.S. military actions reveal their true intentions. The USS Ford has entered the Mediterranean, with forces gradually advancing toward the Middle East — not as a gesture of negotiation, but as preparation for possible military conflict. Meanwhile, the U.S. is withdrawing personnel from multiple Middle Eastern bases and clearing the area. This seemingly contradictory move actually reflects a carefully designed strategy: evacuating personnel in advance to prevent collateral damage if Middle Eastern allies face Iranian retaliation. The U.S. understands that if a real military conflict erupts, Iran will inevitably retaliate against nearby U.S. bases. By evacuating in advance, the U.S. can demonstrate military resolve while protecting its allies who pay “protection fees.” When the situation escalates, the focus of conflict will shift toward Israel.

Israel’s Political Needs and Military Actions

Israel’s domestic political situation has become another variable in this game. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s approval ratings continue to decline, and political pressure is mounting. In this context, an external conflict presents an opportunity for Israel’s leadership. As soon as Iran launches any form of attack or threat, Netanyahu can quickly unite the country, quell internal divisions, and justify adopting a hardline policy, thereby consolidating his political position. The logic that “an attack can bring political dividends” makes Israel an active player seeking change in this geopolitical chess game.

Hidden Tensions and Strategic Calculations in Russia-Iran Relations

On the surface, Russia and Iran appear to have a solid alliance, but deeper analysis reveals it’s far from simple. Russia, embroiled in the Ukraine conflict, desperately needs Iran to sign a military alliance to share the pressure, yet Iran has been hesitant. Why? Because Iran is also conducting a cool-headed strategic calculation: binding itself to Russia would mean facing a collective confrontation with the U.S., EU, and Israel, losing all room for negotiation. Iran is trying to maintain some flexibility, hoping to negotiate energy and other issues separately with Europe. Russia and Iran are each playing their own game: Russia wants Iran to bear pressure on the front lines, while Iran hopes Russia will serve as the main defender. This mutual balancing prevents a true back-to-back alliance from forming.

Turkey’s Strategic Shift in the Caucasus

Turkey’s growing closeness with Russia seems like a new alliance, but in reality, it’s mainly driven by deeply intertwined energy interests. Currently, Turkey and Russia cooperate mainly around energy pipelines. However, once the Ukraine conflict ends and energy flows smoothly, their interests may diverge. At that point, Turkey will likely adjust its stance. The Caucasus, historically a strategic battleground contested by Turkey, Russia, and Persia, will inevitably become a new focus of competition. The region involves territorial disputes and strategic routes to Central Asia, making its geopolitical importance impossible to underestimate.

The Balance of Power and the Deadlock of the Overall Situation

The core of this complex situation is a multi-party deadlock revolving around energy, geopolitics, and survival interests. The U.S. strategy is to use negotiations as bait and military strength as a trump card; Iran’s approach is to refuse tricks, defend its position, and prepare for war while negotiating; Israel waits for conflict to erupt as a way to resolve its domestic political crisis; and Russia, Turkey, and Iran are caught in a cycle of mutual exploitation and checks. On the surface, each side appears to be making rational calculations, but in reality, no one can break this deadlock. Sending a rejection letter is easy, but changing the overall trend is far from simple. The next developments depend on how much the U.S. is willing to pay to advance its geopolitical goals — and the Caucasus, as the intersection of Russian, Turkish, and Iranian interests, will inevitably play an increasingly important role in this grand strategic game.