As the war in the Middle East enters its second month, the scale of destruction, loss of life, and the disruption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz are already producing global consequences. Rising energy prices are being felt directly through higher living costs. This war reflects a broader pattern shaped by rivalry between imperial and regional powers, foreign intervention, and persistent instability. It unfolds against the backdrop of the US’s relative decline, Israel’s military actions in Lebanon and Syria, and the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
As global instability deepens and American dominance is increasingly challenged, particularly by China, Washington has moved to reassert its economic and geopolitical influence. Under Trump, this has taken a more aggressive form. Interventions in Venezuela and confrontation with Iran are not isolated incidents but part of a broader effort to reshape global power by controlling strategic regions, resources, and trade routes, both to secure economic advantage and to project American power.
US policy toward Venezuela illustrates this logic clearly. While framed as supporting “freedom” and democracy, Trump openly stated that the US would “take the oil.” The focus quickly shifted to control over energy infrastructure, revenues, and market access. This same logic informs Washington’s approach to Iran.
This becomes even clearer in the case of Iran, where the stakes are significantly higher. Trump’s initial strategy toward Iran was similarly framed around regime change and the “liberation” of its people. His public statements projected a sweeping vision of conflict, encouraging people to rise up while simultaneously instructing them to “stay at home and come out when we tell you.” His ambitions became more explicit when he suggested that his “favourite thing” would be to “take the oil in Iran,” even contemplating control over Kharg Island.
For a declining empire, Iran represents both a concentration of immense wealth and a strategic obstacle. It holds the world’s third-largest oil reserves and second-largest natural gas reserves, alongside major mineral resources including copper, iron ore, zinc, lead, chromite, coal, and sulfur.
Resistance, and the Limits of Military Power
However, treating Iran as a fragile state or another Venezuela has proven to be a miscalculation. The assumption that overwhelming force, leadership decapitation, and sustained bombing would lead to rapid collapse has proven futile. Despite significant destruction, the Iranian state has not disintegrated.
This resilience is partly rooted in Iran’s historical experience. The 1953 coup, in which the US and Britain overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalised oil, was fundamentally about control over resources. It created a lasting distrust of foreign powers and embedded the perception that what is framed as “security” in Western discourse is often experienced as domination.
The 1979 Revolution emerged from this context, driven by demands for sovereignty and independence. Anti-imperialism became central to the new state, but the revolution also produced a centralised and often repressive political order. While presenting itself as resistant to foreign domination, the Islamic Republic has also constrained democratic alternatives, marginalising and gradually eliminating opposition while maintaining the language of resistance.
This dual legacy, external resistance combined with internal control, helps explain why military intervention produces unintended consequences. Rather than weakening the state, external pressure often strengthens it by expanding security institutions and restricting political space. Dissent becomes securitised, and prospects for reform diminish.
The historical record reinforces this pattern. In Afghanistan, two decades of US-led intervention, costing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, ended not in a stable democracy but in the return of the Taliban to power in 2021. This outcome highlights a consistent limitation of military intervention: it can destroy regimes but cannot construct a legitimate political order. Similar experiences in Iraq, Libya, and Syria further demonstrate that external force tends to produce fragmentation and instability rather than durable transformation. What was assumed to be fragility has instead revealed institutional depth and resilience, now extending to increased leverage over the Strait of Hormuz.
The Strait of Hormuz, the GCC, and the Global Economy
The Persian Gulf is central to the global economy. Around 20% of global oil consumption and a substantial share of liquefied natural gas pass through the Strait of Hormuz. The region also underpins global flows of petrochemicals, fertilisers, and manufactured goods. Disruption here rapidly becomes a global crisis.
Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz was one of the world’s busiest shipping routes, with around 100–130 vessels passing daily. As conflict escalated, shipping declined sharply due to attacks, rising risks, and, critically, the withdrawal of insurance by major firms such as Lloyd’s of London. Without insurance, commercial shipping became economically unviable, effectively paralysing a key global chokepoint.
This dynamic is particularly visible in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, which have accepted deep integration into US-led security and economic structures. Despite vast wealth, these states remain heavily dependent on external protection. Saudi Arabia alone has accounted for roughly 6–10% of global arms imports in recent years, consistently ranking among the top importers worldwide, while the UAE remains within the top ten. Around 70–80% of Saudi arms imports come from the US, alongside key contributions from the United Kingdom and France. This reflects not only military dependence but also broader strategic alignment with US power.
The economies of the GCC countries are heavily dependent on migrant labour. In the UAE and Qatar, expatriates constitute approximately 85–90% of the population, while in Saudi Arabia, nearly half of the workforce is foreign. Although these workers are essential to sustaining economic growth, this reliance exposes a deeper structural fragility. The limited domestic population constrains the state’s social and political base, while dependence on externally sourced labour reflects a model of development that is not internally self-sustaining.
With the escalation of the conflict, Iran’s position has given it significant leverage over the Strait of Hormuz. This does not amount to full control, but it represents a structural advantage that allows Iran to pressure adversaries while exposing the fragility of global energy systems.
Imperial Power, War, and Decline
The conflict has heightened global awareness of the Persian Gulf’s role in modern capitalism, leading to contradictory and unintended outcomes. Often depicted merely as a region of oil wealth and luxury consumption, its vital significance in the global economy is actually highlighted. Key trade routes passing through the Gulf sustain the circulation of energy, petrochemicals, fertilisers, and manufactured goods on which global production depends. Despite the presence of numerous American military bases and years of defence cooperation, Iran has demonstrated a strategic advantage, highlighting the limits of both the US and the GCC.
This dynamic has historical parallels. During the Suez Crisis in 1956, Britain, France, and Israel tried to regain control of the Suez Canal, a vital channel for world trade, after it was nationalised by Gamal Abdel Nasser. Their military intervention, however, not only led to a global crisis but also failed politically, resulting in significant international backlash and a domestic crisis in Britain. Prime Minister Anthony Eden ultimately resigned, marking a decisive turning point in the decline of British imperial power. The episode demonstrated a fundamental limitation of imperial strategy: military force alone cannot secure lasting control over strategic economic resources.
The US is experiencing structural tensions akin to those seen in historical imperial contexts. Attempts to maintain dominance through military intervention increasingly generate instability, ultimately weakening the very order they are intended to preserve.
Conclusion
What we are witnessing is the convergence of historical experience and a global economy in crisis. A legacy of intervention now intersects with a system dependent on fragile energy routes, producing consequences that extend far beyond the Middle East.
This conflict highlights fundamental structural issues in the global geopolitical order, including the crisis of the neoliberal paradigm, the growing rivalry between the US and China, and the increasing competition among regional powers. It also highlights the persistent link between imperialism, warfare, and control over vital resources.
Iran’s history shows the limits of empire in a changing global order. Political freedom and democracy cannot be forced from outside; they come from within society through struggles. Intervention, rather than resolving instability, reproduces it, reinforcing cycles of domination and resistance. In this sense, coercion is not a transformative instrument but a structural mechanism of systemic reproduction. As long as these dynamics remain embedded within the international order, their consequences will continue to reverberate beyond the regional scale.
