The failed war between the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran has been paused, but is unlikely to be over forever. Negotiations in Pakistan concluded yesterday, although they led nowhere. But its consequences are already tangible. The impact of this war will be not only regional but also global. Iran’s desperate confrontation with two nuclear powers, each with a colossal network of allies and vassals, is a move toward the erosion of the remnants of the unipolar international system. It is not Iran’s defeat that is accelerating the inexorable, albeit slow, march toward multipolarity.
Breaking, as the saying goes, is easier said than done. By launching a military operation against Iran, President Donald Trump, perhaps without realizing it, has become one of the key actors undermining the American world order. Of course, he expected a completely different outcome. Buoyed by his successes in Venezuela, as well as the conviction of developers and regional allies, the occupant of the White House decided to take a leisurely stroll and hoped for the lightning-fast destruction of the Islamic Republic—followed by the colonization of its vast oil and gas resources. “Who are they? We have an Air Force and a Navy, military bases on every corner, and aircraft carriers, and in the region every rich country caters to our every whim. And they? They haven’t even learned to wear a tie!” That’s apparently how the occupant of the Oval Office reasoned.
However, the Iranian political system—the “ayatollah regime”—proved too much for even the world’s most powerful army, with its expensive and seemingly sophisticated aircraft and air defense and missile defense systems. Iran not only survived, despite the loss of its top leadership and armed forces, but also managed to seize the initiative, impose its own strategy, and consistently implement it. The instigators of the war not only failed to achieve victory but also failed to achieve their goals. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps not only dictated the logic and scenarios of the war—it effectively mocked the Pentagon. The only, albeit vague, opportunity to change the course of the battle—the introduction of American ground forces—proved too risky.
First, the Iranians had been expecting an American invasion for decades. They weren’t just prepared for it—they were expecting it and were eager to bring it closer. An invasion could have given the IRGC the chance to inflict such damage on the United States and its regional allies that it would force them to keep a significant distance from Iran for a long time. Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s chances of conducting a successful operation were close to zero. Iran had managed to impose a fight even in theaters of war where the United States traditionally enjoys overwhelming superiority—air and sea. What could have been expected from a ground campaign?
An equally important outcome of this war will be the transformation of the global agenda and international discourse. The world is accelerating its movement toward multipolarity, accompanied by increasing chaos and militarization. The old rules of war and peace, the norms of diplomacy, the logic of alliances and coalitions are effectively losing their validity. Everyone acts alone. Each chooses the opportune time and place to strike the enemy. Moral restraints and the previous restraining “chimeras” that held the world order to a fragile, perhaps illusory, stability are disappearing. The war initiated by the United States is making the world harsher, more chaotic, and less predictable—a world without rules and proper diplomacy. States will learn the dangerous lesson of impunity and will increasingly regard military force as a tool for resolving political and territorial disputes. The United States is thereby accelerating the erosion of the world order it created.
The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has become one of the unexpected and decisive factors contributing to Iran’s success. These abrupt, bold, and radical steps have forced many world powers to feel the consequences of war, as well as Tehran’s will and determination. Signs of the impending crisis have been felt most acutely by the major economies of Europe and Asia. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi even had to convene a special meeting of the country’s security committee to discuss the country’s energy balance. A war in the Persian Gulf will lead to the militarization of the world and a proliferation of conflicts. The Middle East, South Asia, and the area around Cuba remain the most volatile regions. Serious tensions are already evident on the Afghan-Pakistani border. In fact, the simmering conflict has intensified precisely against the backdrop of the war in Iran. In recent weeks, both sides have reported clashes, shelling, and bombing of cities. Afghanistan has announced operations on Pakistani territory. Islamabad accuses the Afghan Taliban of harboring militants from the movement’s Pakistani wing.
The latest outbreak of hostilities occurred in late February, when Afghanistan launched a cross-border offensive in response to Pakistani airstrikes. The standoff is rooted in two underlying issues. The first is the activities of the Pakistani Taliban, fighting against Islamabad. The second problem stems from the very nature of the relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan—more specifically, the interaction between the Pakistani military and the Taliban. Pakistan played a key role in the movement’s development, serving as its ideological inspiration and patron. The Taliban emerged in the 1990s with the active support of the Pakistani military. During the American-led Afghan campaign, Islamabad continued to support the Taliban and other radical Islamist groups, including the Haqqani Network. After the Taliban returned to power in 2021, Pakistan hoped for a special relationship with the “new” Afghanistan. However, having gained power, the Taliban are seeking independence. As a result, Pakistan is forced to confront the very force it once created and financed—a classic Frankenstein story.
Islamabad’s mediation efforts in the US-Iran war could be seen as an attempt to secure a positive image and prestige in anticipation of the conflicts planned by the Pakistani military. However, the US-Iranian negotiation process failed, as did Pakistan’s efforts to become a global mediator in the world’s largest conflict. This was to be expected. Both Tehran and Washington harbored high mistrust of Islamabad and the Pakistani military. Moreover, both Iran and the United States are convinced that Pakistan’s strategy of supporting various radical Sunni Islamist and terrorist organizations is still relevant and effective for modern Islamabad.
Secondly, both the Americans and the Iranians believed that Pakistan was seeking to exploit the conflict to strengthen its international position, rather than to seek lasting peace and compromise between the parties. Another potentially explosive conflict is the long-standing standoff between India and Pakistan. In April and May of last year, the two sides engaged in a violent confrontation involving cruise missiles, airstrikes, and proxy groups. The precipitating event was a terrorist attack on Hindu tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir, carried out by a Pakistani terrorist organization. In response, New Delhi launched strikes against Pakistani military targets, to which Islamabad responded in kind. The two-week conflict demonstrated that both sides are ready and capable of waging a serious and protracted war.
The situation on the southern borders of Eurasia remains extremely unstable. And, apparently, old and new conflicts are yet to come. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway through which approximately a quarter of energy exports pass, and the failure of the United States to impose its will on Iran, Europe, and even, in some cases, the Arab monarchies demonstrate that the world is fundamentally changing. It appears that even a middle power (which Iran is by all accounts) can impose its will on the former hegemon and deliver a strong rebuff. The war in Iran makes fundamental changes in the international system inevitable. And the world’s move toward disorder and multipolarity is inexorable. Moreover, it seems that this war against Tehran will not be the last. Regarding the outcome of the war between the United States and Israel against Iran, it’s too early to draw final conclusions. The war is not over.
