A Middle East Fault Line: The Global Consequences of an Attack on Iran

Events in the Middle East are rarely local in nature, and often any tension in the region quickly becomes a factor in global instability. Although this issue is not close to our editorial office (as are, for example, the clashes between Afghanistan and Pakistan or Cambodia and Thailand), it is very difficult to ignore what has been happening around Iran in recent days. The scale of the forces involved, the speed of escalation, and the gradual spread of the conflict to neighboring states all indicate that we are facing one of the most serious geopolitical crises in recent years. It began with a joint operation by the US and Israel, which resulted in the elimination of a key part of Iran’s top military and political leadership on the very first day. At first glance, the attack looked like a classic example of a modern “blitz attack”. Judging by the plans of the coalition of Western powers, it was supposed to force Tehran to quickly accept the terms of Washington and Tel Aviv, primarily on security and nuclear program issues. However, further developments showed that this scenario was too optimistic. After the first reports of the elimination of high-ranking Iranian officials, Western analysts spoke of a serious blow to the command structure of Iran’s armed forces. However, in reality, the country’s state institutions demonstrated high resilience, and within a day, Iran launched retaliatory strikes not only against Israel, but also against military facilities and US diplomatic missions in the Middle East. A distinctive feature of these attacks was the rapidly expanding geography of impact, with reports of strikes gradually emerging from increasingly distant locations. Among the sites mentioned was the island of Cyprus, a strategic hub for the United States and NATO in the Eastern Mediterranean. Any further potential strikes against territories linked to the infrastructure of European Union and North Atlantic Alliance member states could fundamentally alter the nature of the conflict, transforming it from a regional confrontation into an international one. It would be a mistake to view the situation solely in terms of military action. It is clear that the further escalation of the crisis could have much deeper consequences for world politics. Above all, we must take into account the fact that military action began amid unfinished negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. This circumstance is of fundamental importance, since it effectively marked a transition from diplomatic pressure to direct military intervention. This practice calls into question the very logic of international institutions, which after World War II were built around the idea of peaceful conflict resolution. When military force is used before negotiations are exhausted, it sets a dangerous precedent, especially for large states that are beginning to view forceful scenarios as a more effective tool for solving their geopolitical problems. History has repeatedly taught humanity that when established rules cease to function and the law of force comes to the fore, the likelihood of a large-scale war increases dramatically. In the current circumstances, the localized confrontation around Iran could gradually evolve into a broader geopolitical divide – pitting a Western bloc of the United States, the European Union, and Israel on one side against a more loosely aligned grouping of Iran, Russia, China, and other countries of the Global South on the other. Another crucial aspect of the current escalation is its spread across the entire Persian Gulf region. Major regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which have significant military capabilities and their own strategic interests, could be drawn into the conflict. At the same time, Iran has a broad network of allied armed groups stretching from the Middle East to the Eastern Mediterranean. If all these states and forces become actively involved in the confrontation, it could turn into a large-scale land war. Right now, the most tangible consequences of the conflict are manifesting themselves not so much in the political sphere as in the economic one. The Middle East is a key center of global energy, and any turmoil there instantly affects global markets. The first days of the conflict have already led to serious disruptions in energy supply chains, and the key risk factor has been the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil trade passes. Any prolonged restrictions on shipping here could trigger a protracted energy crisis around the world. An additional source of tension is attacks on production facilities and infrastructure in the Persian Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Even isolated strikes on these facilities have led to a decline in supply on the market, which has responded with an approximately 13% increase in the price of Brent crude oil. Analysts are already predicting a further price hikes to $120-150 per barrel (and up to $200 in the most pessimistic scenarios) in the event of a protracted conflict. For the global economy, this would mean a real inflationary shock and a sharp increase in the cost of all categories of goods, from metals and agricultural fertilizers to food. This crisis may prove particularly sensitive for Europe, as after the energy shocks of recent years the European economy remains vulnerable in terms of stable and long-term supplies. Over the past few days, gas prices on European exchanges have soared by more than 50% after Qatar officially announced the suspension of LNG production, which was a highly alarming signal for EU industry. In addition, the potential expansion of the Middle East conflict creates strategic risks for promising energy routes that Europe has been counting on and considering as an important alternative to Russian energy resources. These are transport corridors from the Caspian Sea region and the South Caucasus, which directly border Iran. Therefore, despite the fact that Eastern European countries are at a safe distance from the new hotbed of war, in practice its consequences may be felt in our region as well. This is especially true for Moldova, where the “energy independence” project has been experiencing problems, to put it mildly, even without the events in Iran. Now, the growing uncertainty in European markets could simultaneously lead to energy instability on both the right and left banks of the Dniester. It is also important to consider that a potential energy shortage in Europe could increase demand for Russian supplies, which, from a geopolitical standpoint, would somewhat strengthen the Kremlin’s position. Moreover, a shift of Western attention away from our regional perimeter could create a “window of opportunity” for Moscow, allowing it to act more decisively, particularly in the post-Soviet space, in an effort to alter the balance of power that has taken shape as a result of four years of war in Ukraine. For now, the situation remains fluid, and judging by the concerned expressions on both sides, things are far from a “Venezuelan success”. Donald Trump runs the risk of getting bogged down in his own protracted “SVO.” Nevertheless, we believe that the US is unlikely to be prepared for a long conflict, given that the American president has not received congressional approval and getting involved in a protracted military adventure could cost him dearly in the midterm congressional elections in the fall. But, one way or another, after several days, the current Middle East crisis no longer seems like “just another” episode. A lot depends on how this story ends – mainly, the ability of the US not only to project its power, but also to achieve its goals. Therefore, whatever the outcome of the conflict in Iran, its consequences will be felt far beyond the region. And the longer the escalation continues, the higher the likelihood that the world will finally find itself in a new era of instability, where diplomacy will increasingly give way to force.