By Dr Nick Alviar
Dean, School of Politics and Governance
Six months into the US war against Iran which began as a joint Operation Epic Fury with Israel, the world has been plunged into severe economic turmoil, accelerating a shift in the global order. Prior to the conflict, 20 percent to 25 percent of global oil supplies and roughly one-third (30 percent to 38 percent) of seaborne fertilizer exports passed through the Strait of Hormuz. Today, those maritime flows have dwindled to a fraction of their pre-war levels.
Ironically, the aggressors appear most damaged by this military misadventure, remaining entangled in a conflict with no clear path to victory. Meanwhile, Iran’s strategic position has only strengthened.
The United States — under President Donald Trump — stands as a primary casualty of the war. Despite campaigning in 2024 on a promise to end “forever wars,” President Trump, in fact, has dragged the nation into another “no-end-in-sight war.” Operating with a casual personal style of governance that sidesteps democratic norms, the American President assumed he could intervene in Iran much as he did when capturing Maduro in Venezuela. He entered the war — initially framing it as a brief “few-weeks excursion” — without consistent strategic objectives. Over six months, Washington’s stated goals have oscillated wildly: regime change, degrading military capabilities, dismantling the nuclear program, or liberating the Iranian populace. Furthermore, rather than relying on seasoned diplomats and national security experts, President Trump delegated critical peace negotiations to trusted personal associates, Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
This unilateral approach has created a severe rift with traditional Western allies. When European nations refused direct military participation, President Trump responded with harsh economic threats. For instance, after Spain denied US forces permission to launch strikes from Spanish bases, the American President threatened a full trade embargo. When France blocked American supply transports bound for Israel from using its airspace, President Trump publicly chastised Paris for being “unhelpful.” His frustration culminated in public attacks on NATO allies, labeling them “cowards” and branding the alliance a “paper tiger” for declining to patrol the Strait of Hormuz. In social media outbursts, he warned European capitals to “go get your own oil!” and “start learning how to fight for yourselves” — raising fundamental questions about the future of the once impregnable Western alliance and the rise of American isolationism.
While official figures remain undisclosed, the financial toll on the US could be staggering given the immense depletion of munition stockpiles and sustained operational costs — further pressuring an economy already burdened by rising energy prices. Though Washington can claim tactical superiority through relentless bombing, its lack of an exit plan means it is losing strategically.
Iran appears well-prepared for a prolonged war of attrition, aiming to draw the US into a quagmire reminiscent of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam. Recognizing that it can win simply by not losing, Tehran has utilized effective asymmetric tactics — deploying drone swarms, striking US bases across the Gulf, and mobilizing its regional proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis).
This strategy has transformed the conflict into a broader regional crisis affecting key Gulf states — including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, and Oman. Highly dependent on oil exports, fertilizer trade, aviation hubs, data centers, and tourism, these nations face severe economic disruption. Doubting Washington’s security guarantees, several are quietly seeking bilateral accommodations with Tehran; Oman, for instance, has already initiated independent negotiations. Furthermore, Iran’s effective leverage over the Strait of Hormuz has exposed the limits of the American naval blockade. Domestically, the foreign invasion has consolidated the power of the hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), rallying even Iranian moderates around a nationalist defense, solidifying Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, and permanently damaging US diplomatic credibility.
Globally, the war’s geopolitical fallout is widespread. With the US heavily involved in Iran, Russia continues its destructive military campaign in Ukraine, and could actually justify its actions by citing Washington’s war. China has adopted a high-ground posture, presenting itself as a neutral mediator advocating for diplomatic resolution while continuing its expanding aggressions in the South China Sea at the same time. Pakistan has elevated its global standing by mediating between both sides, emerging as one of the few diplomatic bridges trusted by both Washington and Tehran.
The global order is shifting rapidly, and one man is at the center of the fracture.
The views expressed here are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of the Publication and the University.