Trump’s Speech Signals End of War but Heralds Significant Global Shifts
Last night’s speech by President Donald Trump offered nothing new, and the financial markets’ reaction—an increase of 5% in oil prices alongside a stock market plunge—demonstrated that investors no longer trust the US president’s claims.
From Trump’s remarks, it was clear he was seeking a way to unilaterally end the war. He stated that no agreement is necessary and that the US can return home at any time without needing Iranian oil.
In my view, the current war will conclude without bringing the US closer to its initially stated objectives. However, by the war’s end, significant global transformations are highly likely.
The first change will probably affect the military and defense relationships among Western powers. Trump is deeply frustrated by Europe’s lack of support for the US in the aggression against Iran and is reportedly considering withdrawing the US from NATO.
The US, as NATO’s most powerful member, bears the greatest burden both financially and militarily, thanks to its advanced military technology and the strength of the dollar.
If the US leaves NATO, it would certainly weaken the alliance, if not cause its collapse. However, the challenge for the US would be losing extensive military access points across Europe.
Imagine the US lacking access to multiple military bases geographically positioned between itself and West Asia. How could it effectively engage in wars thousands of kilometers from its own soil?
Such widespread access is a key advantage NATO provides to the US. It is unlikely that NATO members would maintain such facilities for the US at their own expense if America leaves.
To retain these accesses post-NATO exit, the US would need to negotiate separate agreements with each country, offering distinct concessions in each case.
Consequently, a US withdrawal from NATO would trigger a major security shock worldwide, resulting in the emergence of new global security orders.
The second transformation concerns Iran. By the war’s end, Iran will have proven its resilience against the world’s strongest military and succeeded in inflicting irreversible damage on American military technology. This will secure Iran a considerable role in shaping the new global and regional military and security order.
At least in West Asia, Iran will consolidate its dominance over the region, gradually reducing the US presence and strengthening its power base.
Contrary to Trump’s claim that the US would push Iran back to the Stone Age, as long as Iran is not defeated, even if its infrastructure suffers serious damage, it will quickly rebuild.
The third change involves Iran’s victorious exit from the war and its efforts to impose its desired legal regime in the region. Gulf countries, weakened and economically dependent on Western investments and oil sales, will face heavy costs if they resist Iran’s legal regime, costs they are unlikely to bear.
Iran aims to shift financial transactions in the Gulf from the dollar to other currencies. If successful, this could severely undermine the US dollar’s dominance, challenging its decades-long supremacy in international trade.
Besides threatening America’s petrodollar-based economy, this situation would provide Iran access to extensive financial resources unrelated to the dollar’s power.
Given these points, I believe the post-war world between the US, Israel, and Iran will be markedly different.
