By Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj

Sulaimani, Iraqi Kurdistan — 29 May 2026 

How the failed war against Iran accelerated the collapse of Western dominance, shattered the Abraham Accords, and pushed China, Turkey, Pakistan, and the Global South toward a new geopolitical order.

The failed U.S.-Israeli war against Iran may mark the geopolitical turning point of the 21st century. As Gaza burns and the Strait of Hormuz becomes the center of global economic warfare, a new Global South-led order is emerging.

The War That Broke the American Century: Iran, Gaza, and the Rise of the Global South

The war against Iran may ultimately be remembered not as a military campaign, but as the geopolitical moment that shattered the illusion of permanent American supremacy.

For decades, Washington operated under the assumption that military dominance guaranteed political obedience. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and countless covert interventions were all rooted in the same strategic doctrine: overwhelming force could reshape entire regions while preserving American-led global order.

But the war with Iran exposed the limits of that doctrine more dramatically than any conflict since Vietnam.

Instead of isolating Tehran, the conflict accelerated the fragmentation of the Western-led international system. Instead of restoring deterrence, it revealed the vulnerability of American alliances, military infrastructure, and economic leverage. Instead of cementing Israeli regional hegemony, it may have buried the strategic architecture built around the Abraham Accords.

The result is the emergence of something larger than a regional realignment.

It is the rise of the Global South as an independent geopolitical force.

The Strategic Failure of Regime Change

The central strategic assumption behind the U.S.-Israeli assault on Iran was that decapitation would produce collapse.

Israeli planners reportedly believed that assassinating senior Iranian leadership — including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei — would trigger internal fragmentation, elite defections, economic panic, and eventually regime change. Washington appears to have embraced similar expectations.

Instead, the opposite occurred.

Iran’s political structure proved far more decentralized and resilient than Western planners anticipated. The Islamic Republic’s “mosaic defense” strategy — designed specifically to survive leadership assassinations and infrastructure destruction — allowed military and political systems to continue functioning even after catastrophic losses.

Rather than collapsing, Iran adapted.

Its missile and drone capabilities remained operational. Its regional allies stayed active. Its naval leverage over the Strait of Hormuz intensified. Most importantly, Tehran demonstrated that it retained the capacity to impose global economic pain far beyond the battlefield itself.

This transformed the war from a regional military confrontation into a systemic economic crisis.

The Strait of Hormuz and the Weaponization of Geography

The true center of gravity in the conflict was never Tehran or Tel Aviv.

It was the Strait of Hormuz.

Roughly one-fifth of global oil and a substantial share of liquefied natural gas transit through this narrow maritime chokepoint. Iran’s geographic position allows it to threaten the arteries of the global economy without needing conventional military superiority.

This is the central strategic reality Western policymakers repeatedly underestimated.

Iran does not need to defeat the United States militarily. It only needs to make global economic stability impossible.

The possibility of simultaneous disruption in both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait created fears of a dual chokepoint crisis capable of paralyzing maritime trade between Asia, Europe, and the Gulf.

The implications are enormous:

• Energy prices surge globally.
• Fertilizer exports collapse.
• Shipping insurance costs skyrocket.
• Supply chains fracture.
• Food inflation accelerates.
• Industrial production contracts.

The modern global economy was built on assumptions of uninterrupted maritime flow. Iran demonstrated how vulnerable that architecture truly is.

In effect, Tehran weaponized geography.

Gaza and the Collapse of Western Moral Authority

The military conflict with Iran unfolded alongside the ongoing destruction of Gaza, which fundamentally altered global perceptions of Western power.

For much of the Global South, the Gaza war became evidence that the international system operates according to double standards. Western governments that invoked human rights, democracy, and international law in Ukraine appeared unwilling to apply the same standards to Israel’s campaign in Gaza.

This perception matters enormously.

Geopolitical power is not only military or economic. It is also moral and narrative-based. Empires maintain influence by persuading allies and neutral states that their leadership provides legitimacy, stability, and rules.

That legitimacy has been deeply damaged.

Countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East increasingly view Washington not as the guardian of international order, but as a destabilizing force willing to selectively apply international norms according to strategic convenience.

This shift explains why many states refused to align openly with Washington during the Iran conflict.

Silence became its own form of resistance.

The Death of the Abraham Accords Vision

The Abraham Accords represented one of the most ambitious strategic projects of the last decade.

The goal was clear: normalize Israel’s position in the Arab world while constructing a regional bloc aligned against Iran.

The framework depended on several assumptions:

• Gulf monarchies prioritized economic modernization over ideological confrontation.
• Palestinian issues could be marginalized.
• Iran could be contained through diplomatic isolation and deterrence.
• U.S. military power remained unquestioned.

The war against Iran and the devastation in Gaza shattered those assumptions.

Public anger across the Arab and Muslim worlds intensified dramatically. Governments that once considered deeper normalization with Israel became politically cautious. Even states that maintained relations with Israel increasingly avoided public strategic alignment.

The broader vision of an Israeli-centered regional order backed by unquestioned American power now appears severely weakened.

Instead, a more fragmented and multipolar Middle East is emerging.

The Rise of New Regional Power Brokers

The geopolitical vacuum created by declining American influence is being filled by regional middle powers.

Turkey

Turkey has positioned itself as both NATO member and independent regional actor. Ankara maintains relations with Russia, China, Gulf monarchies, and Islamist movements simultaneously while pursuing strategic autonomy from Washington.

Its defense industry expansion, drone exports, and diplomatic balancing have dramatically increased Turkish influence.

Pakistan

Pakistan’s role is becoming increasingly significant due to its military capabilities, Gulf relationships, and growing strategic coordination with China.

Islamabad’s refusal to normalize relations with Israel despite pressure reflects broader ideological and geopolitical shifts across parts of the Muslim world.

Qatar

Qatar has evolved into a crucial diplomatic intermediary, leveraging ties with Western governments, Islamist movements, and regional actors simultaneously. Its mediation role in negotiations involving Hamas, Iran, and the United States highlights its growing influence.

Iran

Far from being isolated, Iran has emerged from the conflict with enhanced regional prestige among many anti-Western constituencies. Tehran successfully reframed itself not merely as a state defending national sovereignty, but as a symbol of resistance against Western domination.

Whether one agrees with that narrative or not, it has strategic consequences.

China and the New Image of Stability

Perhaps the greatest geopolitical winner of the crisis has been China.

While Washington appeared volatile and militarily overextended, Beijing projected restraint, stability, and economic pragmatism.

This contrast matters deeply to countries across the Global South.

Many governments do not necessarily trust China completely. But they increasingly see Beijing as predictable compared to Washington’s cycle of sanctions, interventions, regime-change campaigns, and military escalations.

China’s approach offers something many states desire:

• infrastructure investment,
• non-interference rhetoric,
• trade integration,
• and alternatives to Western financial systems.

The more Washington weaponizes sanctions and military alliances, the more incentives other states have to diversify away from American dependency.

This is accelerating the transition toward a multipolar world.

Economic Warfare and Imperial Overstretch

History repeatedly shows that empires rarely collapse solely because of military defeat.

They collapse because military overreach triggers economic exhaustion, political fragmentation, and declining legitimacy simultaneously.

The United States increasingly exhibits these symptoms:

• mounting debt,
• endless military commitments,
• polarized domestic politics,
• deteriorating infrastructure,
• declining trust in institutions,
• and strategic overextension abroad.

The Middle East wars after 2001 consumed trillions of dollars while failing to produce stable pro-American regional orders.

Iraq destabilized.
Afghanistan ended in withdrawal.
Libya fractured.
Syria became a proxy battleground.
Now Iran has exposed the limits of escalation itself.

The issue is no longer whether the United States remains powerful. It unquestionably does.

The issue is whether American power can still shape political outcomes sustainably.

The answer increasingly appears to be no.

America’s Suez Crisis?

Many analysts have compared the Iran war to the 1956 Suez Crisis.

During that crisis, Britain, France, and Israel attempted to seize the Suez Canal after Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized it. Instead of demonstrating imperial strength, the operation exposed Britain’s declining power and dependence on the United States.

Suez marked the psychological end of the British Empire.

The Iran conflict may serve a similar function for the United States.

Not because American power disappears overnight, but because allies and rivals alike begin recalculating their assumptions about the future.

That psychological shift matters enormously in international politics.

Once states believe a hegemon is declining, they begin hedging:

• diversifying alliances,
• building independent defense industries,
• conducting trade outside dollar systems,
• and avoiding strategic dependence.

The process becomes self-reinforcing.

The Global South’s Moment

The phrase “Global South” often obscures enormous differences between countries.

Yet a common pattern is emerging.

Many states increasingly reject the idea that global order should remain permanently organized around Western preferences and military dominance. They seek greater autonomy, alternative financial institutions, and more diversified strategic relationships.

This does not necessarily mean a unified anti-Western bloc.

It means a world where:

• Washington no longer sets all the rules,
• regional powers have greater leverage,
• sanctions lose effectiveness,
• and multipolar diplomacy becomes normal.

The war with Iran accelerated this transition dramatically.

It revealed that even overwhelming military superiority cannot easily control geography, energy chokepoints, nationalist resilience, or global economic interdependence.

The age of uncontested American primacy may not end tomorrow.

But the illusion that it can continue indefinitely has been broken.

#Iran #Israel #MiddleEast #GlobalSouth #China #Trump #Geopolitics #Gaza #Pakistan #Turkey #Hormuz #USEmpire #OilWar #WorldOrder #KurdishPolicyAnalysis