Iran will claim moral victory simply by surviving as a functioning state, echoing the Viet Cong's defeat of US military power in Vietnam. That shifts the entire power dynamic in the Gulf.
Meanwhile, the USA faces a visible and humiliating strategic loss that will damage its military credibility, destabilise US domestic politics, and accelerate the decline of American global dominance.
The consequences will ripple out far beyond the Middle East.
NATO, the alliance that held Western unity together for 80 years, faces collapse as European nations begin to distance themselves from Washington.
The 80-year USA-Israel alliance is in jeopardy.
The United Nations, the World Bank, and the IMF may all need to be rebuilt from scratch, just as they were in 1945.
The UK, clinging to a "special relationship" that is becoming untenable, will be left dangerously exposed without a functioning navy, an air force heavily dependent on the US, and a foreign policy with no clear direction.
Only China benefits. Its economy is insulated, its energy supplies are stable, and its relationship with Iran gives it a strategic foothold at the centre of the new world order. The Chinese curse that "may you live in interesting times" has never felt more appropriate. This is what the end of the American century looks like.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Everything is going to change because of the war that is now taking place in the Middle East. By which I mean everything is going to change in world geopolitics. They are going to be entirely reshaped as a result of this conflict. The USA and Israel might have started the war on Iran, thinking that this would be a contained event. They're wrong. The consequences will extend far beyond the battlefield that they chose. We need to step back and assess the wider implications as a result. This is about global political and economic realignment.
This is not a short war that is going on in Iran at present with a controlled outcome. The dominant current narrative is that this war might come to a conclusion quite soon, within weeks, according to Donald Trump, but the reality is that the consequences are only just beginning. Political leaders are already underestimating what they have unleashed. History suggests that there will be major disruptions even after a ceasefire is declared in this war.
The bizarre thing is that Iran will be claiming the victory. All serious commentators are now saying that is the most likely outcome of the conflict. Iran will be claiming victory simply on the basis of remaining as a functioning state. Survival is, in this context, a strategic success. Its political, economic, and military planning has held good for it, and its leadership losses have been managed with continuity of succession in place, which has meant that its decentralised command structures have proven resilient.
As a result, it's going to be able to claim an outcome more emphatic than that of the Viet Cong over the USA in Vietnam in 1976, and I well remember that event. Iran is the moral victor, and that will change how we understand the power relationships in the Gulf from here on. They're going to be very different as a consequence.
It's likely as a result as well that Iran will enter a period of relative peace now. That is also what happened in Vietnam, remember. Its government will survive despite Western opposition, and economic development will happen simply because it will not be disrupted by the conflicts it previously suffered. The result will be that its regional power will grow even wider, and it may emerge as a recognised global economic player, as Vietnam has, 50 years after its conflict ended.
In the meantime, there will be one very major loser in this conflict, and that is the USA. The USA will suffer a clear and visible loss as a consequence of withdrawing from this conflict, which is what it now looks likely Donald Trump will seek to do. This will trigger multiple crises of confidence.
Global perceptions of US power will be weakened. The credibility of its military strategy will be damaged, and the loss will have lasting political consequences.
Donald Trump will be undermined by this outcome. His political legacy will be severely damaged, and I see no harm in that, by the way, but the MAGA movement may also lose confidence in him. The risk of his replacement during his term of office will grow, and his ability to deliver any programme within the USA now will be constrained. Again, that might not be a loss, but it's a major disruption to the politics of the USA as a result and to its self-confidence from here on.
There will be consequences of that as well. NATO is already under threat. Donald Trump is already talking about leaving it, and NATO, as a power that has delivered stability for 80 years, will most likely no longer exist. European countries are already beginning to distance themselves from it. Western unity can no longer be assumed as a result. This is a massive change in geopolitics, the scale of which we couldn't have previously imagined.
At the same time, there's going to be another major change, and that is that the alliance between the USA and Israel is going to be in jeopardy. This alliance has also lasted for around 80 years. The USA may force Israel to end its military campaigns at the time that the USA wants peace. It can enforce that, of course, by withdrawing funding for Israeli armaments and, as a result, Israel's capacity to continue its aggression might well be reduced. This would, in turn, then fundamentally alter Middle East dynamics. We have assumed for generations, for longer than my lifetime, that Israel will always win its wars. That is no longer an assumption that might hold true. And Israeli occupations of Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon might have to end, all of which would be great news for the people of those territories, but which will create a regional imbalance.
The UN might have to play a role as a consequence, but if the US uses its veto to prevent that, the future of the UN as an international institution may also be at risk, and that will really upset the apple cart because what Donald Trump is trying to put in its place is no alternative.
We will, at that point, have to recreate all the major world institutions from the UN, to the World Bank, to the IMF, and onwards. The change that is required will be representative of that which was necessary in 1945 as a result.
Let's step back for a moment, though, and look at Israel once more, and the point is that Israel is also going to suffer elsewhere. Israel's actions have imposed economic costs on many other countries, including all of those in Europe, I think, without exception. As a result, it can no longer expect the degree of state support that it has enjoyed from there, as well, over a long period of time. The longstanding assumption of Western support for anything Israel does may collapse. Again, this marks a major geopolitical turning point. I can't quite see where Israel is going next, as a consequence of this. Benjamin Netanyahu's lust for power might have broken the back of the country, which has provided him with the opportunity to abuse.
The EU, in reaction, will need to change its own defence role, not least because of the vacuum created by Israel in the Middle East, but also because of the breakdown in the alliance with the USA and in this, there will be a particular problem for the UK. It's being left high and dry with its so-called special relationship with the USA now looking totally ridiculous and untenable, whilst it will need to move back more closely into alignment with Europe, something with which Keir Starmer says he is comfortable, but about which Europe is not so sure.
One thing is certain: the UK's global power status can no longer be maintained. The idea that we are a major world player is ridiculous. Frankly, we no longer have a place in the UN Security Council. We should no longer be thought of as the country that is there to be the peacemaker. UK foreign policy will require fundamental rethinking after this conflict, as will our defence strategy, where a major rethink is required.
What is very clear is that we do not have a functioning navy in the UK, and the fact is that our air force is also heavily US dependent, and that is an impossible position to now be in.
We need to rethink what defence means in the case of the UK, and in this context, we need to think it includes energy security, food security, climate, sustainability, and defence of the people of this country against fear, most of which is internally generated through failed government policy.
The same challenge is going to be faced by many countries in Europe, but unless this is done, a new defence strategy, which is all about preserving Western values, such as they are, is not going to be tenable. So we need to think about how to do that.
Meanwhile, we need to think about who the other winners and losers from this conflict are. Russia is going to benefit from what is happening because of higher oil prices. That is inevitable. It is still selling oil, and it will gain as a consequence of this. This has enormous adverse consequences for Ukraine as a result, and US support for Ukraine may decline significantly if the US decides to withdraw from Europe, as is likely to be the case. Ukraine is, as a result, likely to be a major loser in this shift, and the balance of power in Europe may change as a result. What the new relationship between Europe and Russia might be, who knows? I don't. We do not know what will happen with this particular relationship. It's all up in the air.
But what we can say with certainty is that China is emerging from this conflict as the dominant world power. Its economy has been largely insulated from this conflict. Its energy supplies are likely to remain stable. It has good relationships with Iran. Its oil supply through the Strait of Hormuz is going to continue. Its currency may even gain status in global trade settlements, particularly with regard to oil, as a result, and its military will become the only unchallenged superpower force in the world. Russia has failed in Ukraine. The US has failed in Iran, but China has an untested military strength, and that reinforces its global superpower position. China is a real winner of this conflict.
This means there is going to be a global realignment. This conflict amounts to a form of World War in its consequences. It will trigger a major reordering of global power with consequences for almost every state.
In this case, the aggressor states will be the primary losers. The USA and Israel are going to suffer badly as a result of starting this war, and then having the inability to explain why they did so, or how they might win, but all countries will feel political and economic impacts as a result of what has happened. Nobody is going to be exempt from those because the consequences are real, physical and unavoidable, particularly with regard to things like fertiliser supplies and consequent risk of famine in some parts of the world.
Global stability over the next few decades is going to be reshaped by this war, and we don't know where everything is going to settle. That is the risk that we now face.
Everything changes; we do need to think about what new architecture we require, but who is there in the field to think about that, or to enforce it? The consequences are systemic and long-term, but there are no players with that type of attitude out in the world right now.
The speed of change has already been extraordinary. Let's just step back a bit and imagine that if we had been told on 1 January 2026 that by early April we would be considering a complete realignment of global geopolitical power, anyone would've thought you were mad, but that is what is happening in real time. That's the result. We are living in what the Chinese would call ‘interesting times', and that, of course, was a curse. We are destined to live through this situation for decades to come, and there is no one to impose an outcome in the world in a way that is beneficial to the UK at present.
That's what I think. What do you think? Let us know your opinion. There's a poll down below. Share your comments with us, and if you'd like this video, please do like it, share it, and subscribe to this channel. All of those things are greatly appreciated by us.
Poll
Loading ...Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The critical factor now is whether the US, UK and other Western countries will continue to support Israel’s genocidal government and whether Netanyahu gets reelected.
I honestly have no idea what this war means for Iran. If Iran is as riven with internal descent as it is portrayed as, then I can’t see things being sustained there so easily, things could go either way if more attempts to obliterate it are made this week (Israel has issued a warning not to travel by train in the country).
Trump and his goons have besmirched the name of the U.S. with their behavior – the U.S. has always behaved badly, but this arrogant and ‘could’t give a shit’ style of the Orange Parrot and his cohorts is so honest that the world seems less likely to accept it. What that tells us about the state of international relations is so revealing as to be totally unacceptable BTW. So war is only reasonable then if you lie about it?! Great! Trump is making history right now – history that will stick.
Israel/U.S. relations? I think what happens after Trump is going to interesting. A new Christian lite administration might either continue to support Israel with materiel without direct intervention or simply cut it. But who will sneak in then to supply Zionism? Russia? Who is going to see Zionist expansionism through to its radical and unacceptable conclusion?
What you say about the UK though I have no issues with. Ours is a lesson about what happens when you put up your country for sale, but think that you can hold strategic world assets with hollowed-out infrastructure returning profit for capital. It does not work. Because you essentially do not own it anymore. Read the contracts Starmer and weep.
There are many interesting What If’s
I might add to the mix
It is not impossible that if Trump orders major attacks against Iranian Infrastructure that the US Military either as a whole or at an individual level may refuse to carry them out. If that does happen what might the implications of that be both for the US and internationally?
What are Western values?
A question I have thought long and hard over and what is it’s core principle. From what I can define Western Values mean, whatever is on this earth or within it is ours if we so need. We used to send Garrisons to quell uprisings if the locals protested too much, now we send corporations and the IMF, sue them through the World Bank or suspend their Dollar accounts. I think spreading democracy, the rule of law and instilling order are the gloss spread through marketing and propaganda hiding this core principle.
The Chinese and Brics nations already have an alternative being put in place, and do we not achieve more through co-operation and collaboration rather than competition and conflict?
Thank you, Richard.
It’s a pity that you are not on the MSM airwaves and in MSM print.
You echo what two French former diplomats, Dominique de Villepin and Gerard Araud, are saying. Perhaps this community’s French contingent, anrigaut and Geof, have seen the pair on LCI and BFM.
The pair don’t see this as a crisis just for the US, which they characterise as in decline and lashing out as it goes down, but the EU, too, as it’s unprepared and unwilling to accept the new multipolar world and engage for a new settlement. The pair say nothing about the UK other than say Starmer is lying when he says British forces aren’t involved.
I know someone in Whitehall. He said hundreds of British personnel are deployed on Iran’s borders and involved in incursions with Kurd and Baluch separatists. He added these dissidents have little local support, according to intelligence, but have a support from the Atlanticist and Israel lobbies in Whitehall and Westminster, so British government policy is to support the US and Israel.
Oh, and the war on Iran is backfiring on the US and Israel. “Tel Aviv is burning”. US casualties, including fatalities, are in the thousands and kept out of sight in Weilersbach and Kaiserslautern, Germany, not flown to the US. US military personnel and civilian staff have been asked to donate blood as supplies run low.
Thank you
‘…….hundreds of British personnel are deployed on Iran’s borders and involved in incursions with Kurd and Baluch separatists.’
I thought as much. Why? Because we are really good at that sort of thing, that’s why. Forget the bloody air craft carriers.
And I still think that Trump’s ‘sledging’ of Starmer is by prior agreement – after all, that’s what men who play games do to each other and it’s all a game to them.
Knteresting post here
https://x.com/DinaPomeranz/status/2041149992694366253
A call from faculty members of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem to Jewish people around the world: “Diaspora Jews, if You Care About Israel – Fight Jewish Terrorism”