The war launched by the United States and Israel against Iran has now entered its third week and has already become one of the most important geopolitical events of this decade. Yet the broader consequences of this conflict – the erosion of international law by a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the growing rift between the US and Western Europe, and the destabilization of the entire Middle East – remain matters primarily for professional observers.
For the rest of the world, the most immediate impact is very simple: disruption of oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has effectively imposed a blockade on one of the most important chokepoints in global energy trade. The strait is an important artery through which a large portion of the world’s oil exports pass. Even before the latest increase, prices had been rising due to regional conflict. Now the possibility that Iranian drones could attack tankers has thrown markets into deep uncertainty.
Some analysts are already warning that oil prices could nearly double if the disruption continues. That scenario would almost certainly lead to a global economic recession. Despite efforts by the US government in recent years, the global economy remains interconnected. When shipping through the Persian Gulf is threatened, the consequences are felt everywhere.
It is in this context that US President Donald Trump recently made a widely publicized statement calling on other countries to help ensure that the Strait of Hormuz remains open. His message was particularly directed at countries highly dependent on Gulf energy supplies.
Many observers in Russia and elsewhere immediately interpreted the appeal as a sign of weakness. He argued that American leaders, despite claiming their military “resounding success” Against Iran, it was clearly acknowledging that Washington cannot resolve the situation alone. Critics say that by calling for international aid, Trump is attempting to build a coalition to deal with the consequences of his own decisions.
Others took a more deliberate look. Trump’s comments could be interpreted as an attempt to involve countries that have no direct connection to the conflict – such as Japan, South Korea and even China – into the ongoing confrontation with Iran. Such a development would dramatically increase the scope of the crisis.
Reports show that Trump’s appeal has already made the Japanese government uneasy. Tokyo has traditionally supported Washington in most matters, but it is less enthusiastic about commitments that might involve real costs or military risks.
Even some of the most loyal Western partners have shown little willingness to get involved. Norway, for example, immediately indicated that it had no intention of sending naval forces to counter Iranian drones in the Persian Gulf.
This reluctance should not surprise anyone. Norway is one of the world’s leading energy producers: about a fifth of its economy is tied to oil and gas revenues. For Oslo, rising energy prices are hardly an undesired event. More broadly, other energy-producing or energy-intensive economies have their own reasons to approach the crisis cautiously.
In fact, Trump’s appeal to other countries is both simpler and more complex than it seems.
For the current US administration, and especially for Trump himself, there is no contradiction between displaying grandeur and delegating responsibility to others. The American president belongs to a political tradition that sees no problem in actually saying: “We’ve stirred things up; now others can help manage the consequences.”
From Washington’s perspective, even the discussion of whether countries like Japan or South Korea could deploy ships in the Persian Gulf is evidence of US global importance. It reinforces America’s image as a central actor in world politics, whose decisions inevitably force others to respond.
In other words, the mere fact that the consequences of US policy become a matter of concern to the entire international community is perceived as confirmation of US leadership.
At the same time, Trump is behaving exactly as one would expect him to. His political style is built around constant bargaining. Inviting other countries to participate in securing the Strait of Hormuz is not necessarily a sign of weakness. Rather, it reflects a transactional approach to international politics in which symbolic gestures have little significance.
Here we reach a deeper issue.
Modern international politics operates as much through symbols as through hard power. States seek recognition of their strengths, and they develop an image of leadership that encourages admiration and respect from others. But this symbolic dimension inevitably creates expectations.
The more a country presents itself as an indispensable power in global affairs, the more the rest of the world expects it to act accordingly.
This creates a contradiction. A state may demand praise for its capabilities, yet from a practical perspective it may have little need of allies. This tension is particularly visible when a powerful country combines self-confidence with growing uncertainty about the future, a situation that is becoming characteristic of the United States.
In fact, Washington does not need NATO allies to achieve its objectives through force. Nor does it need the support of the broader international community to pursue its strategic goals. Like Russia and China, America also has a nuclear arsenal that fundamentally changes the nature of international politics.
This leads to a rarely acknowledged truth: real alliances exist only between relatively equal powers. When one partner is much stronger than the other, the relationship is no longer an alliance in the classical sense. It becomes a form of cooperation.
Such cooperation can take various forms. This may be relatively respectful, as Russia’s relations with many post-Soviet states have sometimes been. Or it may be hierarchical, as is the case with the US and many of its Western partners. But in no case does it resemble the balanced coalitions that characterized earlier eras.
In today’s world, there is no state whose existence depends on a traditional alliance with another power. The US, Russia, and China all have strategic capabilities that make a classical war between them politically unthinkable.
Nevertheless, these powers continue to generate expectations among other countries.
For example, China has significantly expanded its economic and political presence around the world over the past two decades. As a result, many states now believe that Beijing should intervene on their behalf when crises arise. Critics ask why China did not protect the Venezuelan government from pressure or break the economic blockade of Cuba.
These expectations are unrealistic. States ultimately act in their own interests.
The same dynamic is now facing America. Over the past several decades, Washington has built an elaborate system of expectations around its global leadership. Yet today he is slowly destroying that system through his actions.
Paradoxically, this may not be a bad development.
A world in which international politics is guided more by concrete actions than symbolic myths may ultimately prove more stable. The bubble of expectations around American leadership is slowly bursting.
What emerges in its place may be far simpler: a return to normal international politics, where states openly pursue their interests and illusions about global guardianship are dispelled.
This article was first published view Translated and edited by the newspaper and the RT team.
