The Emerging Dynamics of the New World Order in the Middle East (II)

In his influential book, 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000', British historian Paul Kennedy examined the progression and regression of significant nations and empires. He asserted that 'The relative strengths of leading nations in global affairs are never static, primarily due to the uneven development across societies and the technological and organizational advancements that can provide a competitive edge to one over another.' Kennedy also noted that 'Great Power dominance—whether over prolonged periods or during specific conflicts—is closely linked to the availability of resources and economic resilience, while military overreach and a subsequent relative decline pose persistent threats to powers whose ambitions exceed their resource capabilities.'

When Kennedy penned these words in 1987, he unwittingly foreshadowed the current situation the United States faces in the Middle East.

Let's delve into the statistics surrounding this matter.

Currently, the United States oversees approximately 800 military bases globally, a presence that incurs trillions of dollars in annual maintenance costs. The U.S. economy is grappling with an immense deficit of around 40 trillion dollars, a figure that is anticipated to escalate in the coming years, exacerbated by setbacks in global trade, particularly with major trading partners.

This extensive network of 800 military installations signifies an overstretched military apparatus, bearing down on American taxpayers and the economy. Kennedy reflects on this in his discourse, highlighting the staggering expenses associated with sustaining such a colossal military entity for hegemonic pursuits.

Altogether, these factors paint a picture of an America that has embarked on military conflicts while already facing substantial existential geopolitical and economic predicaments.

Thus, this conflict is less about instilling democracy and restoring human rights in Iran by dismantling its Islamic governance. Instead, the core objective for the U.S. appears to be acquiring the vast oil and gas reserves in Iran, supplementing those it already commands across the Middle East. This strategy echoes the recent U.S. intervention in Venezuela, where the focus was similarly on capturing control of oil and gas resources. Securing Iran's oil reserves would significantly bolster the U.S. position in its efforts to readjust its geopolitical dominance in the Middle East and beyond.

The Iran conflict might symbolize America’s analogous moment to the Suez Crisis or Stalingrad.

However, given the tenacity exhibited by the Iranian people thus far, it is increasingly apparent that the U.S. may not achieve its objectives, and emerging realities from the ongoing conflict could compel the U.S. to recognize that its exclusive dominance over Middle Eastern geopolitics is approaching its conclusion.

The United States displaced Britain and France for control of the Middle East during the Suez Crisis of 1956, an event triggered by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal, originally established by French engineer Ferdinand de Lesseps in 1869. Following the nationalization, the British and French, along with Israeli forces, launched an assault on Egypt. Seizing this opportunity to challenge Anglo-French hegemony, President Eisenhower forced the two powers to withdraw, threatening military and economic consequences. Since then, the U.S. has consolidated control over the geopolitical landscape originally dominated by Britain and France.

In the ongoing hostilities with Iran, the U.S. seems to be facing its own potential Suez Crisis, risking the loss of the geopolitical framework it pressured Britain and France to surrender in 1956.

The Iranian conflict signals a potential end to Western hegemony in the Middle East.

Strategically, numerous experts are viewing the predicament that the U.S. finds itself in Iran as akin to its 'Stalingrad moment.' This term refers to a significant battle in which the Soviet Army decisively defeated the Nazi blitzkrieg in the harsh winter of Stalingrad during World War II. This confrontation marked a pivotal turning point in the war and eventually led to the comprehensive defeat of Nazi Germany.

Although the contexts of Iran and Stalingrad differ, there are notable existential parallels. The extensive bombings conducted by the U.S. and Israel, which resulted in numerous casualties among Iranian political and military leaders, have failed to cripple the Iranian military or achieve the strategic goals that both countries sought. Instead, Iran has effectively retaliated against U.S. and Israeli military assets, prompting the U.S. to contemplate a ground invasion aimed at establishing a foothold on Iran's Kharg Island to deploy further troops and engage Iranian forces.

However, many analysts caution that in Iran's unforgiving mountainous and desert terrains, U.S. forces stationed without a secure supply line could find themselves at significant risk against a well-entrenched and battle-hardened Iranian military. This concern has been echoed by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and several retired U.S. generals in their analyses of the conflict.

Anticipating the outcomes.

The trajectory of current events suggests that the influence of Western powers in the Middle East is poised for significant reduction. Western dominance in the region has roots in the covert Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 between Britain and France to partition the region without Arab consent, an arrangement that provoked Arab uprisings against Ottoman rule. The Sykes-Picot agreement led to the arbitrary division of Middle Eastern territories based on oil deposit assessments conducted by Western geologists.

This geopolitical framework was inherited by the U.S. in 1956, with which it consolidated control through military bases and partnerships with regional leaders.

Moreover, the control and access to vast oil resources, born out of strategic alliances established in the region, enabled the U.S. to forge the petrodollar system with Saudi Arabia in 1974.

However, this arrangement may dissolve following the war in Iran. The U.S. and Israel now face the reality of Iran emerging as a legitimate regional power that cannot be disregarded. Additionally, the U.S. must recognize that reliance on petrodollar-only oil sales is not sustainable. Iran is already requiring vessels navigating the Hormuz Strait, which it supervises, to pay for their transit in Chinese Yuan. Looking ahead, it is plausible that the Yuan could emerge as a formidable alternative to the dollar for global oil transactions. The rise of a petroyuan alongside the petrodollar appears imminent. Moreover, with the growing strategic partnership among Iran, China, and Russia, the anticipated rollback of Western hegemony in the Middle East and globally seems to be on the horizon.