By Mahesh Rathi
To view the ongoing conflict in West Asia merely as a war between Iran and Israel, or between Iran and the United States, is to miss its larger significance. At its core, this is a struggle over the future of the international order established under American leadership after the Second World War. One side seeks to preserve global dominance through military power, strategic alliances and political pressure; the other represents an emerging order increasingly shaped by production, technology, infrastructure and economic partnership.
Since the 1970s, American strategy in West Asia has rested on the security of the Gulf monarchies and the petrodollar system. Under this arrangement, Gulf oil was traded in dollars, oil revenues flowed back into the American financial system, and the United States guaranteed the security of its regional allies. The establishment of the Gulf Cooperation Council in 1981 further institutionalised this framework, which became a central pillar of American influence for decades.
Its purpose, however, extended far beyond regional security. It ensured American control over the world’s largest energy reserves and vital maritime trade routes. Israel became the indispensable strategic pillar of this policy, serving as the most powerful outpost of American influence in the region. Any serious weakening of Israel would inevitably diminish American credibility and strategic leverage throughout West Asia.
Recent developments demonstrate that the regional balance of power is changing. The United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, reimposed sanctions and intensified its policy of pressure, while continuing to provide Israel with military, financial and diplomatic support despite repeated appeals for restraint. Without sustained American assistance, Israel’s ability to sustain prolonged military operations would be severely constrained.
Yet the limitations of military power have become increasingly evident. In an interconnected global economy, destabilising a country also disrupts energy supplies, maritime commerce, investment flows and international markets. Military superiority alone is no longer sufficient to maintain lasting geopolitical dominance. In the twenty-first century, real power increasingly depends upon productive capacity, technological innovation, industrial capability, global supply chains and infrastructure development. Countries that build ports, railways, highways, energy networks and industrial corridors create enduring economic relationships that often prove more influential than military alliances.
This distinction is reflected in the contrasting approaches of the United States and China. American interventions in countries such as Iraq left behind prolonged instability, whereas China has expanded its influence through investments in energy, transport, industrial infrastructure and reconstruction. Similar patterns can be seen in Afghanistan, Syria and many African countries. Whatever criticisms may be levelled against China’s policies, its expanding global influence has been driven primarily by investment, production and economic connectivity rather than military bases.
This transformation also reflects a broader shift in the balance of global power from the traditional Western economies towards the emerging Global South. Asia, Africa and Latin America possess the world’s youngest populations, vast natural resources, growing markets and the largest reserves of strategic minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare earths, which are essential for the digital and green economy. Just as oil shaped twentieth-century geopolitics, these resources are becoming central to twenty-first-century competition.
Equally significant, much of the Global South remains in the early stages of infrastructure and industrial development, offering enormous opportunities for investment and economic expansion. Consequently, the principal arena of international competition is no longer defined solely by military bases but increasingly by ports, industrial corridors, digital networks, energy projects and participation in global supply chains. West Asia occupies a pivotal position in this contest because it links energy resources, maritime trade routes and the economic future of the Global South.
Even if Iran suffers extensive damage, America’s deeper strategic challenges will remain. The post-war international order rested upon overwhelming American industrial supremacy. Today, however, China has become the world’s largest manufacturing centre. Although the United States continues to lead in finance, advanced science and military capability, rising public debt, expanding defence expenditure and a declining share of global production have exposed structural weaknesses within its economic model. By contrast, China continues to strengthen its position through manufacturing, technological advancement and modern infrastructure.
The conflict in West Asia, therefore, is not simply a confrontation of missiles, drones and warships. It represents a contest between two competing models of global leadership: one centred on military dominance and political coercion, the other increasingly based on production, infrastructure, technology and economic integration.
History demonstrates that no international order remains permanent. As new productive forces emerge, established powers invariably seek to preserve their dominance. The present conflict reflects precisely such a historical transition. Its outcome will influence not only the future of West Asia but also the distribution of global power, the structure of the world economy and the character of international relations for decades to come.
For this reason, the conflict should not be viewed as another regional war. It is one of the defining geopolitical struggles of the twenty-first century, with the potential to reshape the international order and mark the beginning of a new historical epoch. (IPA Service)
