Dire straits: Prolonged war could alter the global security architecture

Escalating US-Iran conflict and oil disruptions threaten global stability, while shifting alliances signal a weakening of America's geopolitical influence

It is now increasingly evident that United States (US) President Donald Trump is struggling to find a face-saving exit from an ill-planned assault on Iran over a month ago. Both the supposed war objectives of regime change and nuclear deterrence appear to have been replaced by the extraordinary declaration in a distinctly underwhelming address to the nation last week. Instead of offering a path to de-escalation and peace, the President declared that the US would bomb Iran back “to the Stone Age”. Bombing a sovereign nation to destruction cannot be considered an objective. It is unlikely to lead Iran, with a system designed for wartime attrition, to surrender, nor is it likely to guarantee lasting peace in West Asia. Despite incapacitating strikes, Iran retains a missile capability that has confounded its opponents. As Israel has learnt, the intensive bombardment of Gaza for more than two years, and Lebanon more recently, has not secured the country. Iran-sponsored Hamas still controls half the ruins of Gaza, endangering the ambitious realtor blueprint of the US-led Board of Peace, and Hezbollah continues to attack northern Israel with rockets and drones. The belated mobilisation of the Iran-sponsored Houthis along the Red Sea has underlined Iran’s asymmetric warfare capabilities. 

Inability to end a war that is putting increasing pressure on the global economy does not seem to have prompted introspection in Beltway. Instead, the US President is leveraging his nation’s position as a net exporter of oil and gas — less dependent on West Asian supplies — to claim that the Strait of Hormuz is no longer a US problem. While it is true that US imports via the strait are negligible and have been falling over the past few years, the US President’s statement reflects an extraordinary abdication of responsibility. Had the US and Israel not launched Operation Epic Fury and Operation Rising Lion, respectively, Iran would not have destroyed some of the oil and gas infrastructure of the US’ Gulf allies, nor closed the Strait of Hormuz, which accounts for the shipment of a fifth of the global supplies of crude oil and gas. 

The upshot is that the allies, most notably in Europe, and competitor China are swiftly looking to refashion the global security architecture to reduce reliance on an unpredictable superpower. Mr Trump’s threat to exit the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) because key European nations denied the US military the rights to fly over them is encouraging alternative alliances already. The shift in trans-Atlantic ties was already underway last year, when Europe significantly stepped up its assistance to Ukraine, as the Trump administration scaled back large-scale financial aid to Kiev. The events of the past week have strengthened those impulses. 

The United Kingdom’s initiative to gather foreign ministers to discuss ways to reopen the strait is one example. At the same time, the petro-dollar system, which has underpinned oil trading in West Asia since 1974, is being challenged reportedly by a small but growing petro-yuan trade with the Iranian regime permitting countries it perceives as allies to buy oil using the Chinese yuan. These shifts and readjustments in the global world order may take time to pan out. But one thing is certain: Even if Mr Trump manages to end the war in “two or three weeks” without reopening the strait — as he now claims he can do —  America’s global standing has been irreparably weakened.