The US-Israel War On Iran: Control Of Oil, Power, And The Future Of Global Order – OpEd |
The recent US–Israel strikes as part of ‘Operation Epic Fury’ on Iran have reverberated across the international system, intensifying fears of a broader regional or even global conflict. Beyond the immediate military escalation, these developments reveal deeper geopolitical and geo-economic dynamics tied to Energy Control, Global Power structures, and the evolving International World Order. Analysts across the world argue that the conflict must be understood within a larger framework of Hegemonic Competition with Declining American dominance, and the struggle over strategic resources—particularly oil in the Middle East.
What initially appeared as a limited military confrontation has increasingly taken on the characteristics of a systemic geopolitical rupture. The military campaigns, diplomatic tensions, and economic consequences now unfolding extend well beyond Iran and Israel, affecting the stability of the Persian Gulf, global energy markets, and the legitimacy of the existing international order.
American War-Making Machine
Militarism has long been described by critics as a defining feature of American strategic culture. “Militarism is the US national religion; we believe in wars even when we no longer formally declare them.” Under President Donald Trump, this approach appears to combine a belief in military power with the transactional logic associated with his concept of “America First and Make America Great Again (MAGA)”.
One of the central criticisms being raised is the erosion of constitutional procedures in the United States regarding war decisions. Under the US Constitution, the authority to declare war lies with Congress. However, in recent decades major military interventions have increasingly been initiated by the executive branch, often justified through national security doctrines rather than formal declarations. Decisions regarding military operations frequently originate within the executive establishment and the security bureaucracy, including intelligence networks such as the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense.
The escalation against Iran illustrates this pattern. Israeli leadership had openly articulated long-standing ambitions to strike Iranian strategic infrastructure. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly stated that he had aspired for decades to confront Iran militarily. The stated justification revolves around the claim that Iran represents an existential threat to Israel due to its missile capabilities, support for regional proxy groups, and alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Parallel to Israeli operations, the United States launched military actions aimed at neutralizing Iran’s missile and drone capabilities and disrupting its nuclear infrastructure. These objectives formed part of a broader strategy to eliminate Iran’s ability to threaten American allies or US military bases across the Middle East.
US has a History of Regime Change. National Endowment for Democracy (NED) created by Ronald Reagan in 1983, provided to the CIA to destabilise foreign governments. While NED’s stated mission is to support democracy, it has been involved in funding initiatives that have been criticized as attempts to influence regime change in certain countries.
The US Operation ‘Absolute Resolve’ against Venezuela, resulting in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro, further illustrates the expansion of unilateral force beyond conventional battlefields. Washington described the mission as a law-enforcement action targeting narco-terrorism again in the name of Oil Control.
“Talk Peace and Wage War”
A dramatic example occurred when missiles struck the administrative headquarters of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at a time when negotiations concerning Iran’s nuclear program were reportedly ongoing. “Talk Peace and Wage War”. At the time of the strike, a high-level meeting reportedly included senior officials such as the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the defence minister, the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, and other senior security officials.
The strike targeted what was effectively the highest decision-making forum of the Iranian state. The objective appeared to be the elimination of the country’s leadership hierarchy in a single blow towards American concept of Regime Change.
Iran’s political system, structured around clerical and revolutionary institutions, contains multiple layers of succession to multilayered leadership. Even if senior leaders were eliminated, the system possesses mechanisms to replace them. As a fallout, rather than eliminating the regime, such strikes may reinforce nationalist resistance against external aggression!
Failure of International Law and the UN
From the perspective of international law, the strikes are a violation of established diplomatic and legal norms. Prior to the escalation, mediation efforts involving international diplomats had been exploring potential compromises regarding Iran’s nuclear activities. Talks facilitated by intermediaries were believed to be approaching a breakthrough that might have eased tensions.
Critics therefore argue that the attacks reinforce perceptions that the so-called “rules-based international order” operates selectively. Western governments frequently invoke this concept to promote international norms, yet unilateral military actions appear to contradict those principles.
The resulting perception, particularly among countries of the Global South—is that international rules are applied unevenly. Such contradictions erode the legitimacy of global governance institutions and encourage other states to disregard legal constraints. Under the United Nations Charter, the use of force is generally prohibited except in cases of self-defense or with explicit authorization from the UN Security Council and the recent times the UN has failed to maintain world peace.
The problem is structural. The UN can convene emergency sessions, issue condemnations, and call for ceasefires. But when permanent Security Council members are themselves parties to conflict, enforcement mechanisms stall. Veto power paralyzes accountability and the system falters when great powers themselves are the stake holders to the dispute. As a result, “Law of the Jungle” rhetoric has returned to mainstream discourse. The fear is not just of isolated conflicts but of precedent: that “Might increasingly defines Right”.
Oil, Energy Security, and Geo-Economic Power
At the heart of the geopolitical confrontation lies the strategic importance of energy resources. The Middle East remains one of the most critical oil-producing regions in the world, making it central to global power competition.
Iran occupies a particularly significant geographical position. It sits astride the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most vital maritime chokepoints in the global energy system. Roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil supply passes through this narrow waterway each year.
During the conflict, hostilities forced the effective closure of this strategic corridor, immediately disrupting global energy markets. Energy analysts warned that prolonged disruption could drive prices to unprecedented levels.Such developments highlight the profound geo-economic implications of Middle Eastern conflicts. Control over energy supply routes provides immense strategic leverage. Countries that influence the production, transportation, or pricing of oil can shape global economic conditions and political alignments.
Asia is particularly vulnerable to disruptions in Gulf energy supplies. China, India, Japan, and South Korea collectively account for a substantial share of oil and liquefied natural gas imports from the region. Any sustained disruption in the Persian Gulf therefore has direct implications for the world’s largest economies.
Contest Between Missiles-Drones and Missile Defenses
Iran possesses a large arsenal of ballistic missiles and armed drones capable of striking targets across the Middle East. However, missile defense systems face significant limitations. Interceptors are extremely expensive and available in limited quantities. Iranian drones, by contrast, are relatively inexpensive and are being produced in large numbers.
Estimates suggest that Iranian Shahed Drones cost less than$50,000 each, while the interceptors used to destroy them may cost over $1 million per missile, often requiring multiple interceptors per target. This asymmetry creates a classic problem of economic attrition. Recognizing its technological disadvantage against the United States and Israel, Iran has developed approaches designed to compensate for disparities in conventional military power.
If Iran can launch hundreds of drones or missiles, defensive systems may struggle to sustain long-term interception rates. The conflict thus evolves into a battle of endurance between offensive saturation and defensive capacity.
Regional Instability and the Legacy of Intervention
Military interventions have often produced prolonged instability rather than lasting political solutions. Iran presents an even more challenging environment for military operations. With a population exceeding 90 million people, difficult mountainous terrain, and decades of experience coping with sanctions and isolation, the country possesses considerable resilience.
In addition, the ideological foundations of the Iranian state—rooted in revolutionary nationalism and Shia political theology—may strengthen societal resistance during wartime.
The conflict has already spread beyond the immediate battlefield. Iranian retaliation targeted military facilities and infrastructure across the Gulf region, including bases and strategic installations in multiple countries. Civilian infrastructure such as ports, airports, and energy facilities has also been affected.
Toward a Fragmented Global Conflict
The Iran crisis is unfolding amid several other major geopolitical tensions around the world. Conflicts involving Russia and Ukraine, instability across the Middle East, and tensions in South and Central Asia all contribute to an increasingly volatile global environment.
Although these crises are not formally connected, their simultaneous escalation creates what some analysts describe as a fragmented global conflict environment. Multiple regional confrontations interact indirectly through alliances, energy markets, and military deployments. Such conditions increase the risk of miscalculation, particularly when great powers are involved.
Alliance Politics and Emerging Global Blocs
Another dimension of the conflict concerns the structure of international alliances. Many European governments have traditionally aligned with American strategic positions through longstanding security arrangements and NATO commitments.
However, the Iran crisis has exposed growing divisions among Western allies. Some governments have expressed reluctance to support military escalation, reflecting domestic political pressures and concerns about the economic consequences of prolonged conflict.
At the same time, non-Western organizations such as the BRICS group and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are gaining visibility as potential platforms for diplomatic coordination among emerging powers.
The Future of Global Order
For many observers in the Global South, the conflict reflects deeper historical tensions rooted in colonial legacies and unequal power structures. Political movements across the Middle East often frame regional struggles as resistance against external domination and economic marginalization. The war involving Iran therefore represents more than a regional military confrontation. It is part of a broader contest over the future structure of the international system.
The United States seek to preserve an international order built during the post-World War II era. Meanwhile, emerging powers such as China, Russia and India advocate a more multipolar framework in which influence is distributed more widely among major states.
The outcome of the US–Israel war on Iran may therefore have consequences far beyond the battlefield. It could reshape energy markets and layout a new balance of power or continue with US domination. As tensions continue to reshape strategic calculations across the Persian Gulf and beyond, the conflict to control Energy, Power, and GeoEcoPolitical influence remains central to the evolving global order. Khamenei’s son Mojtaba Khamenei has been chosen to lead the country. While Trump has said that the new leader of Iran won’t last long without his approval, Israel has threatened that he is the “target.”