The first ten days of the war between Iran, the United States and Israel have shown that the United States is seriously losing its ability and authority as the “global gendarme” of the world. To understand this geopolitical picture, it is necessary to evaluate the process in three stages: US intentions in going to war, initial developments on the ground, and the resulting international reactions.
First, we need to look at the motivations of the United States in going to war. In launching the attack on Iran, Washington was driven by a semi-motivated agenda, shaped by pressure from certain vested interests. First of all, there is no denying that the pressure on President Trump from the Epstein dossier played an undeniable role in this decision. Behind this agenda were both economic and strategic objectives. One of the US calculations had to do with energy geopolitics. It aimed to gain an extremely strong economic advantage in the global energy market by combining the low-density oil it obtained from Venezuela with the high quality oil that a proximate government in Iran would provide. In addition, Washington's plans included selling more arms to the Gulf countries by putting them under security pressure through the perception of the Iranian threat, and ensuring that these countries redirect their investments to the United States as a one-stop shop.
However, the US wanted to send not only a regional but also a global message through this war. It wanted to show its military might to alternative power centers, particularly Russia and China, and to bring them back into line. At the same time, guaranteeing Israel's security and further consolidating its position as the sole dominant power in the Middle East was a key element of this strategy.
When the United States took the field, it assumed that once the first bomb fell on Tehran, its allies in the region, especially NATO member states in Europe, would quickly side with it. Washington acted on this expectation and launched the operation with a reflex of global bullying. However, the picture that emerged after the first bombardment was the opposite of expectations. The deep silence that followed the attack and the course of developments showed that things were not going as planned for Washington.
The first serious objection came from Europe. Some European states have made it clear that they do not recognize the US aggression as legitimate. In general, European countries have stated that there is no strategic interest for them in this war and therefore they will not directly side with Washington. Although the intense diplomatic pressure from the United States caused a brief hesitation in European capitals, developments on the ground and the political and strategic support provided to Iran by Russia and China further strengthened Europe's distant stance.
Contrary to expectations, Iran's direct targeting of American bases and strategic points in the Gulf had a different outcome. The Washington administration thought that these attacks would unite the Gulf states against Iran and drag them into a war on the US side. However, developments have shown the opposite. Many Gulf states have adopted a cautious stance rather than getting directly involved in the conflict, and in some quarters, discontent with US policies has even begun to be openly expressed. While Washington expected the Gulf states to declare war on Iran, it was unexpectedly confronted with new directions and objections.
In the process, the US also tried to draw its allies into the war through various manipulation attempts and false flag operations. However, these attempts did not yield the expected results. As the war de facto turned into a narrow front formed by the US and Israel against Iran, an important geopolitical rupture began to emerge on a global scale. Russia and China's support for Iran had a serious deterrent effect on American allies, particularly in Europe.
President Trump soon realized that air strikes alone would not achieve the desired results. At this point, the deployment of ground troops on the ground came to the fore. For this purpose, Washington planned to engage some paramilitary and legionary structures in the region. In particular, it was aimed to launch a ground operation by putting some Kurdish groups and organizations in the region on the ground against Iran. However, the stance of powerful actors in the region, especially Turkey and Iran, and the intervention of Russia and China prevented the realization of these plans. In addition, Iran's pre-emptive military moves against these groups also prevented a possible ground operation to a great extent.
As the war progressed, it became clear that the United States was almost completely isolated in the region. Although its military capacity and technological superiority were still strong, its ability to directly deploy its allies on the ground was severely weakened. At this point, another attempt was made to create a new front through Azerbaijan. However, the intervention of Russia and other actors in the region prevented this initiative from turning into a large-scale conflict.
In the final analysis, the picture is quite clear. Despite its military, technological and intelligence superiority, the United States has lost the political weight to bring its allies into the war on its side. Even in the face of a regional power like Iran, the reality of an America that is unable to mobilize its allies, especially NATO countries and Gulf states, has emerged.
Under these circumstances, it is already clear that even if the US wins this war against Iran militarily, it will be a “Pyrrhic victory”. Because Washington's greatest strength was not its military capacity but the alliance system it had built. If this alliance system is beginning to unravel, this could herald a fundamental shift in the global balance of power.
In my opinion, whatever the final outcome of the war, the United States is rapidly losing its role as the “authoritarian bully of the neighborhood”. If this war turns out to be a failure for Washington, many allies, especially the Gulf states and European states, will turn much more quickly to Asia, especially China. In such a scenario, the United States could not only lose its global leadership position, but also face a serious erosion of its economic and political power. In the long run, this erosion could deepen to the extent that the position of the United States in the international system would become questionable even within structures such as the G7.
Even more likely, if the ruptures in American domestic politics deepen, even the federal structure may face serious tests. Perhaps today's events are the first signs that the era of US global hegemony is coming to an end and a new world order is taking shape.
From a geopolitical and public law perspective, these are sketchy assessments based on developments in the first ten days of the war. However, current indicators suggest that we may be on the verge of a significant transformation in the international system.
Dr. Sermet ERDEM/ Lawyer