On the strategic consequences of the US-Iran deal

2026-06-22

Representatives from the United States and Iran are already meeting in Switzerland to agree on a permanent end to the war. Many important details remain unknown, though the way things are set is already giving us an indication of what to expect.

Both sides can claim victory. Though it is only a Pyrrhic one: another such moment of glory and they will be destroyed. Iran’s military and civilian infrastructure has been degraded, while its economy is reeling. They can keep on fighting, if necessary, at the expense of their longer-term wellness. Similarly, the Americans do not have the capacity to persist on a war of attrition, given their exposure to many other fronts around the globe.

Israel, one of the belligerents, is noticeably absent from the talks. This may be presented as a diplomatic debacle, though I think it is a win. The Israelis retain maximum flexibility to consolidate what they have gained over the past months. They see their wars as integral to their survival, while the Americans are merely fighting for extra profits. Whether with Benjamin Netanyahu in charge or another government, there is no way for Israel to give up on its campaign in Lebanon and its ongoing operations on Palestinian lands.

For their part, the Iranians have hitherto maintained an expansionist agenda. They have instrumentalised Shia populations and other groups in the wider region in order to extend control beyond their borders. The series of events since October 7 leading up to the present have made Iran’s foreign policy posture untenable. There is no land corridor anymore between the Iranian heartland and the Eastern Mediterranean. Whatever support the regime expresses towards Hezbollah cannot be sustained and shall become increasingly tokenistic.

Israel understands this dynamic and is thus galvanised to inflict maximum damage in Southern Lebanon at a relatively low cost. Israel does not have enthusiastic friends in the international community while support for it even among American voters is decreasing. Still, the logic of geopolitics demands that it pursues its ends with determination. Electorates have short memories. Whatever is lost now on the popularity front can be regained. What matters is the situation on the ground, where Israel remains dominant. The ongoing negotiations in Switzerland cannot undo this reality: only more war can, for which there is little appetite.

The Arab nations in the Gulf stand at a crossroads. The presence of American armed forces in the region did not prove beneficial to them. Their economies suffered greatly from the conflict. They still have options though: to continue as part of the Western security-financial architecture or to diversify their foreign policy with a pivot towards the Chinese and South-East Asian countries (where there are large Muslim populations, no less). The latter may be the only viable option given that (i) America has no pressing need for Middle Eastern oil while the Asians depend on it, and (ii) Iran is capable enough to pummel US bases around its borders. The Arabs do not gain from being Western protectorates the way Israel does.

Of great significance is the outcome of the negotiations with regard to the Strait of Hormuz: will free passage be the norm or are we moving towards a new arrangement where transit fees are imposed. To return to the status quo ex ante, the Americans will have to remain in the region or some equivalent power structure will need to be established. However that is done, it does not resolve the tensions that produced this war. Iran wants a permanent cessation of hostilities and the best guarantee to that end is the withdrawal of enemy forces from its neighbourhood. Consequently, we will likely have a new normal in Hormuz where Iran and regional partners are imposing tolls or other restrictions.

The Hormuz precedent is bound to change the face of maritime trade over the medium-to-long-term. Every country that has access to a chokepoint will have a strong incentive to assert its sovereignty in pursuit of immediate gains. And while free trade can be construed as a vestige of Western colonialism, which can then be criticised as such, the turn to sovereignism will necessarily engender the conditions for the resurgence of wanton piracy at the high seas. The reason for that is that major trading partners will have to find ways to keep trade routes profitable at the expense of the various sovereignists holding on to the chokepoints. Ergo commercial ships accompanied by military vessels and equipped with the appropriate hardware and ergo the need for safe havens, aka colonies, along the shipping lanes.

Put differently, these are not the machinations of some shadowy imperialism. It is how things work. International trade, colonialism, and piracy are facets of the same phenomenon, namely, access to and distribution of resources across countries. Which facet is more relevant depends on the prevailing norms.

The international order lacks a sovereign. Its laws are implemented on the basis of convenience. With the Americans no longer having the capacity to police the globe, the notion of a rules-based society of nations is becoming increasingly unrealistic. The United Nations do not have the means to enforce their collective will. The cracks are obvious in Palestine, for example. All the UN officials can do is make strongly worded pronouncements, which can be safely ignored.

The multipolar world order is inexorably on the rise. It will not necessarily be a prettier place. Yes, it signals the end of Americanism and Western supremacy more broadly, though it also is the death knell of the UN, at least in terms of substance. International law will give way in earnest to localised arrangements of power which shall be codified in inter-state covenants without reference to an overarching framework of legality. Thus an ever-more divided world is upon us.

Away from the fray of the Middle East, yet directly linked to the transition towards multipolarity, is the situation in Ukraine. The Russians are making slow yet steady advances in the Donbas region, where even the BBC is now reporting that the Ukrainian position is dire. This despite the positive press that drone strikes on Russian civilian infrastructure have in the West. European leaders know this is a shadow play. They want to keep Zelenskyy afloat to service their own interests. Though it is becoming apparent that Russia is winning on the ground and will only settle for peace on its own terms. Again, a multipolar world is not necessarily going to be pretty.

What unfolds in Iran reverberates in Eastern Europe and the Levant. Donald Trump is a master of distraction who effectively hides the decline of the USA behind personal theatrics. He understands that he speaks to a low attention span audience and has optimised his policy orientations accordingly. What matters is the impression, the brand of a deal-maker and decisive leader who makes his supporters feel good about themselves. People forget how things were very quickly. Illusionist gimmicks have yielded domestic success though geopolitics is not done with smoke and mirrors. President Trump does not wield the power he would like to have. International affairs continue to evolve as more spheres of influence are taking form.