The Iran War and the breaking point of the global order

Iran is resisting not only for itself but also on behalf of the entire global south and honorable states that oppose colonialism.

West Asia has experienced numerous crises in recent years. However, the process that began with the joint attack by the US and Israel on Iran carries a different character than previous crises. This is because this war is not merely a military conflict between two states. It is a multi-layered geopolitical breaking point that extends from energy security to global trade routes, and from financial markets to great power competition. Therefore, what is happening must be evaluated not just as a regional war, but as part of a transformation in the global system.

The picture that has emerged since the first days of the war is highly controversial in terms of legitimacy. Military operations were launched while diplomatic negotiations with Iran were still ongoing. This situation demonstrates that the "rules-based international order" established after World War II and defended by the West for years has effectively collapsed. When the trust relationship between diplomacy and military power disappears, the international system also loses its meaning. Indeed, even the rhetoric put forward by the US administration regarding the war's objective reflects this uncertainty. On one hand, regime change was initially targeted, and while it was later announced that this was not the goal, the Iranian people were simultaneously explicitly called upon to revolt in any case. On another day, it was stated that the purpose of the operation was merely to limit Iran's military capacity. These contradictory statements show that strategic goals in Washington are not clear.

Polls indicate that only about 25 percent of the American public supports the war. This rate is one of the lowest levels of support seen for a war in modern American history. Especially what has happened in Gaza and the military operations carried out by Israel have created a serious reaction in Western public opinion. Younger generations in the US no longer form a social base that automatically supports global military interventions. As the impact of the disruption of energy flow in the Gulf on American consumers increases, the dose of criticism toward Trump will rise. Meanwhile, the effect of the Epstein files on the American public should not be ignored while questioning the legitimacy of this war, nor should the thesis that Trump started the war to reduce the pressure of the Epstein file.

The New Form of Modern Warfare

An important dimension of the Iran-Israel tension is the transformation of hybrid warfare into open conflict. Since 2007, assassinations targeting nuclear scientists and military officials in Iran have gradually increased. The purpose of these operations was to delay Iran's nuclear program, weaken its scientists and military command echelon, and create psychological deterrence over Iran. In the attacks of June 13, 2025, this method reached a much more advanced dimension. Micro-kamikaze drones, precision-guided munitions, and high-tech special weapon systems were used in the operations. Such operations show that a new era has been entered in modern warfare where land, air, cyber, and cognitive domains are used together. Perception operations and propaganda have also become an important part of the war. While Western media produced a constant narrative that Iranian society would collapse, the fact that large protests took place in Iran to support the regime showed that this narrative did not reflect reality.

In contrast, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth claims that Iran has been almost completely destroyed and that the war is nearing its end. Trump also claims that the war will be a quick and easy victory. The Iranian administration does not confirm this picture. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that they do not want a ceasefire and will not negotiate with the US, and when asked about the possibility of a ground operation by Trump, he laughed and challenged them by saying, "Let them come, we are waiting." If Iran's military capacity had truly been destroyed, rational behavior would be to seek a ceasefire. Iran's refusal to negotiate shows that its capacity to fight has not been completely eliminated.

In the first phase, by using cheap and rapidly expendable ammunition to saturate air defense systems, they then began ballistic and hypersonic missile attacks, causing serious damage not only to Israeli military targets but also to US bases in the region, ports, command and control centers, and air defense radars and batteries. By shifting the burden of the war onto the wealthy Arab countries in the Gulf and making them targets on the grounds that they serve US attacks both directly and indirectly, they paved the way for the consequences of the war to cause a global crisis and for pressure to be put on the US and Israel.

Iran's Unexpected Resistance

When looking at the military dimension of the war, it is seen that Iran has shown a much stronger resistance than expected. In the first week of the war, it is observed that Iran reached some of its targets. Iran survived the first wave of attacks against the world's most powerful air armada, disabled some radar systems in the Gulf countries and Israel, forced the attacking coalition to exhaust its expensive air defense missile stocks, and effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, seriously affecting global energy flow.

Iran implemented a phased strategy during this process and first put into practice a long-term war of attrition against US-Israeli air superiority using low-cost missiles and UAVs. It has gained significant force multipliers by combining the experience and preparations it has accumulated over the last 46 years since 1980, the experiences of the 12-day war that began on June 13, 2025, and most importantly, the technology and military aid from Russia and China. It is important that Iran has developed its defense strategy within a siege psychology that has lasted for nearly half a century and has made preparations according to the possibility of constant foreign intervention. The eight-year experience of the Iran-Iraq War has increased the resilience of the Iranian military system. During this war, Iran had to fight under heavy embargoes and developed an asymmetric warfare strategy. In this context, the approximately 150 UHPC (Ultra High Performance Concrete) missile bases it has underground are Iran's biggest trump card. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that Iran is a civilization with three thousand years of state experience. Such societies often tend to unite more in the face of external attacks rather than falling apart. Indeed, this trend has been observed in Iranian society since the first days of the war.

The US Logistics Problem

The first week of the campaign against Iran shows how expensive and unsustainable modern wars have become. According to American open sources, the cost of the first four days of attacks has reached approximately 11 billion dollars. This amount includes the deployment of more than 12 warships and a force of approximately 100 aircraft from the US and bases in Europe to the Middle East, 5.7 billion dollars in air defense interceptor missiles, and 3.4 billion dollars in bombs and other ammunition expenditures. This does not include personnel expenses, training costs, and the use of strategic assets in the region. In addition, the cost of military equipment lost or damaged by the US in the first week of the war is estimated at approximately 3 billion dollars. These losses include 3 AN/TPY-2 missile defense radars (one confirmed to be completely destroyed), 3-4 F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets, 4 MQ-9 Reaper UAVs, and damage to an AN/FPS-132 early warning radar in Qatar. Besides this, it is reported that many SATCOM (Satellite Communications) and SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) radomes were also destroyed in attacks on US facilities in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar.

However, the real strategic problem of the war is not the losses but the ammunition production capacity. According to analyses, interceptor missiles are being rapidly consumed in the air defense operations the US is conducting against Iran, and it is debated whether the stocks will be sufficient for a long-term war. The picture that has emerged, especially regarding the SM-2, SM-3, and SM-6 interceptor missiles used in Patriot PAC-3, THAAD, and Aegis systems, shows that modern warfare is a war not only of technology but also of stocks and production capacity. Iran's use of ballistic missiles and a large number of kamikaze UAVs is dragging defense systems into a kind of war of attrition. The use of multi-million dollar interceptors against cheap attack vehicles has brought the issue of sustainability on the defense side to the agenda. A large number of THAAD, Patriot, and SM-3 interceptor missiles have been used in a short time to prevent Iranian attacks. This leads to a rapid depletion of the interceptor missile stocks of the US and its allies. Since the production of these missiles is limited and expensive, it is not easy to replenish stocks in a short time. At the same time, radar and early warning infrastructures, which are critical for the operation of air defense systems, are also targeted in Iranian attacks. Damage to the sensor infrastructure significantly reduces the effectiveness of defense systems. For this reason, the US Navy and allied forces in the region are establishing a new logistics order to replenish air defense stocks. A significant portion of the destroyers and cruisers serving in the Gulf are being directed to India or Diego Garcia to reload ammunition. This means the ships will be away from the region for about 7 days. It is also a separate fact that these systems are inadequate against Iranian hypersonic missiles.

On the other hand, it is assessed that the US stocks of long-range precision strike munitions are approaching critical levels. The main munitions the US uses against Iran are the Tomahawk cruise missile, launched from warships and submarines with a range of approximately 900 nautical miles, and the JASSM joint air-to-surface cruise missile, launched from fighter jets with a range of approximately 600 nautical miles. According to information in open sources, the US's usable Tomahawk stock may have fallen to around 2000–2500. The JASSM stock is thought to be around 3000. In short, the US may have about 5000 long-range cruise missiles left. Even this stock is limited for a long-term air campaign against a large country like Iran. Furthermore, the US must also keep the same munitions in reserve for deterrence against great powers like Russia or China. It is assessed that these stocks could be exhausted within a few days in such a conflict. For this reason, it should be expected that the US will turn to cheaper JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) type glide bombs instead of expensive and limited cruise missiles. However, for these bombs to be used, aircraft must approach the target to a distance of about 30-40 nautical miles, which puts pilots at high risk. It is assessed that Iran may have kept its air defense in critical areas instead of using it completely in the first phase of the war. The goal is to activate these systems at the stage where US and Israeli aircraft will be forced to use short-range munitions. It may be difficult for Iran to hit American and Israeli missiles fired from a distance until now, but the aircraft are much more vulnerable.

Another critical area is explosives production. The production problem of high-energy explosives such as RDX and HMX, which are found in almost all modern warheads in the US. While the US produced half a million tons of explosives per day on 10 production lines during World War II, it is operating with only two production lines today. Seeing this and the negative picture described above, the Trump administration continues to hold new meetings with defense industry companies to accelerate production. At the end of the first week of the war, Trump announced that an agreement had been reached to rapidly increase the production of high-tech weapons after meeting with executives from BAE Systems, Boeing, Honeywell Aerospace, L3Harris, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon. Although the US administration argues that mid-level ammunition stocks are sufficient, it is becoming increasingly clear that if the war drags on, the determining factor will be production capacity rather than military power, that is, logistical factors.

The Impact of Iran's Strategy on Energy and Maritime Trade

While Iran directly targets Israel in the war it is waging with great effort, it is also implementing a strategy that targets the US's military and economic infrastructure in the region. American bases, energy facilities, and logistics infrastructures in Gulf countries have been placed at the center of these attacks. Iran's hitting of energy and economic targets has rapidly increased the geoeconomic dimension of the war. The price of oil, which was about 73 dollars before the attack, became 93 dollars a week later. However, this may only be the beginning. Because about one-fifth of the world's oil trade and LNG shipments pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Although it is not a matter of Iran effectively closing this passage, the strait has been closed due to high risks. Ships trapped in the Gulf cannot exit due to insurance problems and personnel safety. More than 200 VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) oil tankers are stranded in the Persian Gulf. If this situation continues, it is even possible for oil prices to rise well above 100 dollars, and according to some scenarios, even to the 150 dollar level. Similarly, Qatar's cutting of LNG exports after missile hits on its production facilities has had a similar effect.

The lack of Qatari energy, on which Europe is dependent, combined with the lack of Russian gas, has created a very dire picture. This crisis in the energy market could also create great pressure on the global financial system. There are investment funds managing approximately 220 trillion dollars in assets in the world financial system. Even a small portion of these funds turning to energy markets could lead to a very sharp rise in oil prices. This could cause vertical price increases in financial markets. Rising energy prices also directly affect economic activity in modern economies. Because almost every sector, from industrial production to transportation, is dependent on hydrocarbon energy. On the other hand, the cessation of trade in the Gulf negatively affects the supply of jet fuel used by the aviation industry. More than half of the world's jet fuel is Gulf-sourced, and this supply is being cut off. The same applies to commercial ship fuels. The continued closure of the Gulf will create serious disruptions in the world bunker fuel supply.

According to the International Maritime Organization, approximately 20,000 seafarers are stranded in the Strait of Hormuz. The number of container ships that have had to change their routes or are waiting in the region has reached 170. The disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz directly affects 650,000 TEU of container traffic per week in the Gulf. The world's largest container lines such as MSC, Maersk, CMA CGM, and Hapag-Lloyd have suspended all their operations in the Strait of Hormuz. This is a development that could affect not only energy markets but also global trade chains. There are serious security and psychological risks for the seafarers stranded on the ships. The supply of fresh water, food, and fuel can quickly become a major problem. Great responsibility falls on the captains and officers on the bridge.

Shifting Global Geopolitical and Geoeconomic Balances

The US attacking Iran is a strategic mistake. Iran is a geographically extremely difficult country. Its population is about 90 million, and a large part of it consists of mountainous terrain. Therefore, a ground operation against Iran, even if Trump thinks about it, is not realistic from a military perspective. The manpower and political support necessary for the US to occupy Iran are also not present. Iran, on the other hand, is better prepared for a long-term war. Another important result of the war will be the shift in global economic balances. Gulf countries have long been seen as safe investment areas. However, if a perception is formed that the US cannot protect these countries, the capital flowing into the region may also be at risk. At the same time, Asian countries may enter into new searches in terms of energy security. The energy crisis creates great risks, especially for Europe.

Europe has created an energy crisis for itself in recent years by moving away from Russian energy sources. The policy of closing nuclear power plants and turning to expensive LNG has made the European economy more fragile. The Iran war could further increase this fragility. Some economists state that the European economy could move from recession to depression and that high energy prices could create a risk of hyperinflation. If European government bonds are sold by international investors, interest rates could rise rapidly and a serious financial crisis could emerge.

With the Iran crisis, it is likely that China will increase its energy cooperation with Russia, and countries like Japan and South Korea will try to reduce their dependence on West Asia. This process could lead to the world being divided again around two economic blocs. On one side, the US and the traditional Western alliance, and on the other, Russia, China, and BRICS countries could take their place.

Although the possibility of the ground leg of the war being carried out through Kurdish groups is being discussed, Trump has recently moved away from this option. In this framework, the US using Kurdish groups against Iran could pose a serious security risk for Turkey. Iran also sees this possibility and is taking a tough stance against organizations like PJAK. Ethnic balances in northwestern Iran will also play an important role in this process. It is noteworthy that emphasis was placed on Turkish identity in a positive way in the demonstrations held in Tabriz. The most important issue for Turkey is the preservation of regional stability. Provoking Azerbaijan into a war with Iran is another mistake. Even though it was declared that the UAVs sent to Nakhchivan were not sent by Iran, Aliyev's statements were extremely wrong. US and Israeli calculations for the unification of Azerbaijan, which is geographically squeezed between Russia and Iran, with Iranian Azerbaijan may backfire. It should be taken into account that the political elite of Iran are Azerbaijani Turks. In such a scenario, it should not be expected that Turkey will join the war as a NATO member and fight against Iran. Although alternative plans have been prepared accordingly, Ankara is experienced enough not to fall into this trap.

US Aircraft Carriers in the Gulf

The US decision to shift its aircraft carrier group in the Mediterranean (USS Gerald Ford) through the Red Sea toward the Gulf should be taken into account. Although the passage through the Red Sea is risky due to the Houthis, the US may be taking this risk for several purposes. The first is to create an air campaign architecture that can exert pressure from different directions, even if from long range, against Iran. If aircraft carriers are deployed in the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea, and the Eastern Mediterranean, pressure can be exerted on Iran from multiple fronts. The second could be for these aircraft to provide long-range air support to Israel. By providing combat air patrol and early warning support with aircraft on US aircraft carriers, it can reduce Israel's burden. The third option is deterrence, not direct attack. The US often uses aircraft carriers for psychological pressure and a show of force. However, aircraft carriers cannot approach the Iranian coast because Iran's ballistic missile, submarine, cruise missile, and drone capacity poses a serious threat. Another option is that if the Houthis (Ansarallah Group) effectively enter the war and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait closes like Hormuz and maritime trade from the Indo/Pacific region is cut off, an attack on Yemen may also be considered. Another option could be to relieve the Lincoln Aircraft Carrier strike group and ensure they are resupplied by sending the escort group, which has run out of ammunition, to Diego Garcia or Indian ports.

Conclusion

The war has completed its first week as these lines are being written. The US and Israel have not achieved the quick and decisive victory they expected. The conflict is gradually ceasing to be a short-term operation and is taking on the character of a long and grueling war. This situation is pushing the Washington administration to seek to present a new success story to the public. The phrase "The fall of Cuba is now just a matter of time," which Trump expressed in his recent speeches, is noteworthy in this context. The failure to achieve a quick result on the Iranian front may have brought to the agenda the search for producing a symbolic and quick victory over a weaker target.

Despite Hegseth and Trump's narratives, the reality on the ground is different. Iran is a state that has been preparing for a war of attrition for a long time, and the Strait of Hormuz is at the center of its strategy. On the other hand, despite the US and Israel using intense firepower by targeting Iran's underground bunkers in the second phase of the war, it does not seem easy to achieve results. Iran aims to prolong the war and increase the military, economic, and political costs of the other side by using this deep defense structure. Moreover, the fact that the US has used thousands of precision munitions so far creates a separate problem in terms of the sustainability of the war, considering the reproduction time of these munitions.

Besides this, the possibility of NATO being drawn into the war through Azerbaijan and Turkey via false flag operations should not be ignored. However, the reaction created in world public opinion by what is happening in Gaza and the policies of the US administration, which are increasingly based on the use of brute force, is great. Even if governments make decisions under pressure, the support of the people will gradually weaken. The criticisms rising in Spain or Indonesia considering leaving Trump's Gaza Peace Committee are the first signs of this trend. The Shiite uprising that has begun in Bahrain should also be followed carefully.

As a result, Iran should not be expected to surrender in a short time. The Hormuz crisis is not just a market fluctuation affecting oil prices, but a real supply shock aimed at the main logistics vein of the global energy system. Therefore, the Iran war cannot be seen only as a regional conflict. It is a historical breaking point that could create deep effects on energy markets, the financial system, and global power balances. What is happening in Iran today is also not just a war, but the painful harbinger of a new era where Western hegemony has begun to dissolve and the world is gradually moving toward a multipolar order. Iran is resisting not only for itself but also on behalf of the entire global south and honorable states that oppose colonialism.