Armies fight for a people; armies fight for a nation. Armies fight for a way of life. And that is what we are defending: a great civilisation that has every reason to be proud of its history, confident of its future, and aims to always be the master of its own economic and political destiny—Marco Rubio, speech at the Munich Security Conference, February 14, 2026.

The February 28, 2026, unprovoked military assault on Iran by the United States and Israel, entering its fourth week, marks a dangerous turning point in contemporary geopolitics. It is not simply another episode in the troubled history of the Middle East. It signals the early phase of a broader strategic contest in which physical destruction and targeted assassinations are being deployed as instruments of war to reshape economic and geopolitical realities.

Iran’s location explains why it has again become a central theatre of this emerging contest. Situated between Central Asia, the Persian Gulf and the eastern Mediterranean, the country lies astride one of the world’s most critical energy corridors.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which a substantial share of global oil trade passes, gives Iran an influence over global energy security that few states possess. Any attempt to destabilise Iran, therefore, carries consequences that extend far beyond regional politics. It reverberates across energy markets, maritime routes and the evolving architecture of Eurasian connectivity.

Iran is also an important link in emerging economic corridors connecting China, Russia and the wider Eurasian region. Infrastructure networks linking Central Asia to global markets increasingly depend on stability across this geography. Disrupting Iran, therefore, disrupts the broader architecture of Eurasian trade.

The present escalation must therefore be examined through a broader strategic lens. The confrontation with Iran coincides with intensifying economic competition between the United States and China. China’s rise has reshaped global trade networks, manufacturing chains and technological ecosystems. Direct economic containment has proved difficult. Strategic disruption offers an alternative path.

In international politics, mighty powers seldom describe their actions in terms of domination, extraction or coercion. Instead, they invoke the vocabulary of stability, peace, democracy, humanitarian responsibility or the defence of a “rules-based order”.

Destabilising Iran affects far more than regional politics. It disrupts supply chains, heightens energy uncertainty and complicates emerging economic partnerships across Eurasia

Destabilising Iran affects far more than regional politics. It disrupts supply chains, heightens energy uncertainty and complicates emerging economic partnerships across Eurasia

History repeatedly demonstrates that when powerful states proclaim themselves defenders of the international system, the consequences often resemble disorder rather than stability. Whenever the United States finds it difficult to compete within evolving economic structures, it invariably seeks advantage through strategic instability, using its military superiority—acting as an aggressor while posing as a peacemaker.

Instability created by design along major trade corridors discourages investment and fragments supply chains. Regions that might otherwise have been emerging as centres of economic growth are now instead drawn into cycles of political tension and security crises. Such patterns did not emerge spontaneously. They reflect a strategic outlook that gained influence in Washington after the Cold War.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States entered what analysts described as the “unipolar moment”. Rather than adapting to a more plural international order, influential policymakers argued that American primacy should be preserved indefinitely.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine expressed this thinking with unusual clarity. It proposed that the US strategy should prevent the emergence of any rival capable of challenging American global dominance. Later, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) developed similar ideas, advocating overwhelming military superiority and strategic influence over regions considered vital to global power.

Strategic doctrines rarely remain confined to policy papers. Over time, they shape the language through which power justifies itself. Ideas first articulated in strategic planning documents gradually enter diplomatic discourse and political rhetoric. Concepts such as maintaining primacy or controlling strategic regions begin to appear less as calculations of power and more as principles of international order.

What Experts Call the “New Great Game”

International relations scholars often describe the strategic rivalry unfolding across Eurasia as the “New Great Game”. Like the nineteenth-century contest between imperial powers over Central Asia, the modern version centres on control of energy resources, trade corridors and geopolitical influence across the Middle East, Central Asia and the Caspian Basin. Major powers—including the United States, China and Russia—along with regional actors now compete across this vast strategic landscape.

The speech delivered by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the Munich Security Conference, fourteen days before the attack on Iran, reflected this intellectual current. Rubio portrayed Western history as a civilisational project stretching across centuries in which Europeans had “sent missionaries, pilgrims, soldiers and explorers across oceans to build vast empires”.

Such remarks were striking not merely for their historical interpretation but for the assumptions underlying them. Colonial expansion appeared in this telling as a form of civilisational outreach rather than domination. For much of Asia, Africa and Latin America, the historical memory is rather different. Imperial expansion reorganised entire economies around external interests and subordinated local political structures to distant capitals. Political independence was achieved only after a prolonged struggle. Recasting imperial expansion as a civilisational achievement, therefore, raises important questions about the intellectual direction of contemporary geopolitics.

Energy geography lies at the centre of these debates. Oil and gas remain essential to the global economy. Control over production zones, shipping lanes and pipelines translates directly into geopolitical advantage.

The Persian Gulf, the Caspian Basin and the eastern Mediterranean collectively contain some of the most valuable hydrocarbon reserves in the world. Destabilising Iran affects far more than regional politics. It disrupts supply chains, heightens energy uncertainty and complicates emerging economic partnerships across Eurasia.

The language used to justify such actions often emphasises regional “stability” and “security”, with Iran’s nuclear programme frequently invoked as a pretext. Powerful states portray themselves as defenders of the international order. Military interventions are described as necessary steps to restore balance or prevent chaos.

The confrontation around Iran, therefore, represents more than a regional crisis. It reflects a deeper struggle between competing visions of global order

The confrontation around Iran, therefore, represents more than a regional crisis. It reflects a deeper struggle between competing visions of global order

Recent history tells a more complicated story. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was presented as an effort to democratise the Middle East. The intervention in Libya in 2011 was framed as a humanitarian necessity. Afghanistan was described as a stabilisation campaign against extremism. The outcomes were deeply destabilising. Iraq descended into prolonged conflict. Libya is fragmented into rival political authorities and militias. Afghanistan returned to a political configuration strikingly similar to the one that existed before two decades of war.

Interventions undertaken in the language of “peace” produced widespread disorder. The global balance of power is now shifting rapidly. China’s economic rise has transformed trade networks across Asia and beyond.

Russia retains significant strategic capacity. Regional powers such as India, Türkiye and Brazil increasingly pursue more autonomous policies. The international system is gradually moving towards multipolarity. This transformation unsettles American policymakers accustomed to unchallenged dominance. Calls for renewed Western unity often reflect anxiety about preserving strategic primacy rather than concern for global stability.

Military pressure, sanctions and geopolitical containment have therefore become recurring instruments of policy. The pattern resembles familiar domestic dynamics. Political elites frequently justify the concentration of power by presenting it as a tool for lasting peace. Language becomes a shield behind which control expands.

International politics follows similar incentives. Actions that destabilise regions are described as measures to maintain order. Strategic rivalry is framed as the defence of global norms. The contradiction becomes visible only in outcomes.

Regions exposed to repeated interventions experience prolonged instability and slower economic development. Areas that emphasise connectivity and cooperation tend to achieve more durable growth. The emerging networks linking Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East illustrate this alternative. Infrastructure initiatives associated with Eurasian connectivity aim to expand trade and investment across continents.

Pakistan lies close to the centre of this unfolding geopolitical contest. Gwadar, the maritime pivot of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), sits only a short distance from the Strait of Hormuz through which a substantial share of global oil shipments passes.

The corridor linking western China to the Arabian Sea was conceived to shorten energy routes and reduce reliance on vulnerable maritime chokepoints. In strategic terms, CPEC alters the geography of Eurasian trade by connecting inland Asia to warm-water ports.

Projects of this nature inevitably attract geopolitical attention. Instability in Iran, turbulence in Afghanistan and pressure along Pakistan’s western frontier must therefore be examined within a broader strategic context. Disruption along these corridors weakens the economic integration of Eurasia while reinforcing older patterns of geopolitical control.

Two competing visions of international order are now visible. One emphasises cooperation, infrastructure development and economic integration across regions. The other relies on strategic rivalry, military pressure and control of energy resources. The emerging pattern suggests that geopolitical disruption is increasingly deployed as an instrument of geo-economic competition against Eurasian integration linking China, Iran, Russia and Central Asia.

The confrontation around Iran, therefore, represents more than a regional crisis. It reflects a deeper struggle between competing visions of global order. One seeks to preserve dominance through pressure and disruption. The other rests on economic integration and shared development.

History suggests that prosperity grows where cooperation replaces rivalry. Attempts to maintain supremacy through instability and the use of force rarely succeed for long. They tend instead to multiply conflicts while accelerating the decline of those who rely on them. The choice between these paths will shape the geopolitical landscape of the twenty-first century.

© The Friday Times