Before discussing the potential changes to the global order resulting from the war between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other since February 28, 2026, three methodological observations should be highlighted.
First, there is no single inevitable future for the international system; rather, multiple scenarios are possible. Second, the war has not yet ended, and its impact on the shape of the global order will depend on how it concludes — whether through a clear American victory, a negotiated settlement, or a prolonged war of mutual attrition.
The third observation is that the war’s impact is unfolding within a broader context shaped by other major variables and transformations, including China’s continued rise across all sectors, the Russian-Ukrainian war entering its fifth year in February 2026, the weakening of the American hegemonic model, the chronic crisis of the global economy, and intensifying competition among major powers over artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, and hybrid conflicts. These developments also affect the balance of power among major states and are themselves influenced by events in the Middle East — particularly disruptions to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, the suspension of most regional oil and gas exports, and disturbances in global supply chains.
Accordingly, the war is not merely a U.S.-Israeli-Iranian confrontation. It is deeply intertwined with the American-Chinese geoeconomic rivalry and the American-Russian geostrategic competition, making its trajectory directly connected to the restructuring of international balances of power. In any case, this war is not simply a regional event; it has already created several pathways through which it could influence the global order and redefine the relationship between major powers and the Middle East. It will inevitably affect the reorganization of balances among great powers because developments in the region directly influence energy markets, maritime routes, and political and security alliances.
The War’s Impact
The U.S.-Israeli-Iranian war represents a major test for the shape of the emerging international order. It has exposed deep divisions among major powers, with China and Russia openly rejecting the war. When the United Nations Security Council discussed a draft resolution on freedom of navigation through strategic straits on April 7 — including the possibility of armed escorts to protect commercial vessels — Beijing and Moscow vetoed the proposal, while Pakistan and Colombia abstained.
Divisions also emerged within the Western alliance regarding the conflict. An early March statement by the European Union called for respect for international law without directly condemning any party. European NATO members refused President Donald Trump’s request to participate militarily in reopening the Strait of Hormuz by force, while Spain condemned the U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran. India adopted a cautious position, calling for de-escalation due to its interests with all sides. However, following escalating Iranian terrorist attacks against Gulf states, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the United Arab Emirates on May 15, signing several strategic partnership agreements in defense and energy.
The central question here is how the outcome of the war will affect the status of American global dominance. Any conclusion or settlement to the conflict will shape perceptions of U.S. power: will the decline symbolized by the withdrawal from Afghanistan continue, or will President Trump’s efforts to restore American strength succeed through massive military spending, his doctrine of “peace through strength,” and his success in changing Venezuela’s political system?
If Washington emerges from the Iran war having achieved its military and political objectives — such as containing Tehran or imposing a settlement on American terms — the image of the United States as the world’s foremost military power capable of punishing adversaries, increasing the cost of opposing its policies, and protecting its allies across multiple theaters will be reinforced. This would strengthen its global standing vis-à-vis China and Russia. At the same time, Moscow and Beijing would likely develop a stronger shared interest in resisting American pressure, increasing coordination to balance U.S. influence.
However, if the war ends with a negotiated agreement that fails to resolve all disputes between Washington and Tehran, or after a prolonged phase of attrition, America’s image could be shaken, its deterrent capabilities weakened, and the limits of its power exposed.
Regarding Sino-American relations, both countries share an interest in ending the Iran war and restoring commercial shipping, especially since China is the largest importer of Gulf energy. Nevertheless, Beijing is not sympathetic to American demands and is unwilling to pressure Iran into accepting them — a position made clear during President Trump’s visit to Beijing from May 13 to 15. This Chinese stance can be explained by its close ties with Iran, with which it signed a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement in 2021. At the same time, Beijing condemned Iranian terrorist attacks against civilians in Gulf states. Both powers also share an interest in maintaining the stability of the global economic system and preventing severe market disruptions.
Therefore, if the Iran war ends through negotiation or prolonged attrition, the lesson China may draw is that while the United States still possesses enormous military capabilities, it remains vulnerable to exhaustion and cannot always impose its will. Beijing may therefore seek to expand its economic presence and influence in the Middle East.
As for relations with Russia, Moscow initially appears to benefit from rising oil prices, Washington’s partial easing of sanctions on the Russian energy sector, and American distraction from the war in Ukraine. However, if the Iran war is decisively resolved in favor of the United States, Russia would lose one of its most important regional allies following the loss of Syria.
If the Iran war ends through negotiation and prolonged attrition, this could create greater opportunities for Russia’s regional and global role, especially since Moscow condemned the American attack on Iran amid reports suggesting political, intelligence, and possibly military support for Tehran.
One of the war’s most significant consequences has been the weakening of the concept of a unified global market and its replacement by what might be described as “fragmented globalization.” In response to reduced Gulf oil supplies, European states turned to American oil, while many developing countries relied increasingly on China, which used part of its strategic reserves to help meet their energy needs. Beijing may use this situation to deepen relations with friendly states and potentially shape an economic bloc that conducts trade using currencies other than the U.S. dollar.
Three Possible Scenarios
Based on this analysis, the global system could evolve according to one of the following scenarios:
1. Unipolarity and the Consolidation of American Dominance
A decisive U.S. victory would reinforce Washington’s global role, strengthen confidence in the American security umbrella among allies, expand arms deals and defense cooperation, and renew economic and technological dependence on the United States. This could encourage Washington to redesign regional arrangements in the Gulf and Red Sea while working with allies to reduce dependence on Chinese technology and investments. Greater political pressure on China and Russia would likely follow, alongside intensified efforts to contain their influence.
In this scenario, both Beijing and Moscow would lose a key regional partner in balancing American influence. Nevertheless, this outcome would still confirm that unipolarity remains relative rather than absolute, as Washington would continue operating within an increasingly competitive and pluralistic international environment.
2. Accelerated Transition Toward Multipolarity
If the Iran war ends without a decisive American victory, Washington’s global position could weaken — even if it remains powerful — while China and Russia expand their roles, accelerating the transition toward a multipolar world order already underway.
China would likely deepen trade and investment ties, participate in reconstruction efforts, and revitalize Belt and Road Initiative projects. Beijing could also assume a larger political role beyond issuing statements, presenting itself as a stabilizing power and a reliable mediator not militarily involved in regional conflicts.
In this context, China may face a strategic paradox: its heavy dependence on Middle Eastern stability to secure economic and energy interests contrasts with its unwillingness to bear the military burden of protecting maritime routes. This reveals its continued structural dependence on the U.S.-led regional security system.
At the same time, Russia’s role in arms sales, advanced technology transfers, anti-Western alliances, and strategic cooperation with China and Iran would likely expand. Middle powers, meanwhile, could benefit from international fluidity to strengthen their strategic autonomy and build more flexible and balanced regional partnerships.
3. Disorder and an Unstable Global System
If fighting resumes, infrastructure is destroyed, the war expands geographically, and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked, the result could be intensified competition among major and regional powers, severe market disruptions, soaring oil prices, global inflationary waves, declining economic growth, and sharp deterioration in developing economies.
This scenario would also involve weakening international institutions, expanding regional and international conflicts, and increasing reliance on military force as a tool for achieving political objectives. In such an unstable environment, security would depend increasingly on mutual deterrence and crisis management.
Conclusion
In light of these developments, no one can predict with certainty the exact form the global order will take in the coming phase. However, if current trends that have been evolving since the beginning of the twenty-first century are taken into account, the most likely trajectory appears to be toward a turbulent and unstable multipolar system.
Such a system would feature multiple centers of influence and control, with power becoming more fragmented. Each major pole would seek to attract as many states as possible into its sphere of influence. Some states would form part of a core alliance, while others would remain in peripheral zones, cooperating with one pole without severing ties with others.
These peripheral states would become arenas of competition among major powers, with each seeking to draw them into its orbit. This competition itself would become a source of instability in the international system, contributing to escalating regional crises and a persistent state of global uncertainty.
Ultimately, history may record that the U.S.-Israeli-Iranian war represented the final major test of America’s ability to lead the global order and marked a turning point in the emergence of a new international system — one that is more complex, more fragmented, and less stable.
