In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon argued that empires usually erode slowly, shaped by long-term structural shifts. But occasionally a single strategic miscalculation accelerates decline. The joint US–Israeli strike on Iran in February 2026 may be such a moment.
Military clashes in West Asia are common, but this episode could have repercussions beyond the battlefield. Observers note parallels with the 1956 Suez Crisis, when Britain and France achieved a short-lived military success that collapsed politically under US pressure, signaling the end of Britain’s independent global power. The 2026 strike on Iran could mark a comparable inflection point for American influence.
For more than seven decades the United States anchored the international order not only by military power but through institutions, rules and economic arrangements that supported global stability and growth. China’s industrial rise and Russia’s economic integration largely unfolded inside that system. Central to US influence in West Asia was a security–energy bargain: Washington guaranteed the security of Gulf monarchies in exchange for oil trade and pricing conducted in US dollars—the petrodollar system—which reinforced the dollar’s centrality in global finance and assured energy supplies.
Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution placed it outside this arrangement. Tehran evolved as a challenger to US influence, cultivating alliances with groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. Its posture reinforced Gulf states’ reliance on US protection. For decades US policy in the region rested on three pillars: containing Iran, preserving the petrodollar system and guaranteeing Gulf security. That framework helped sustain regional development and cement Washington’s role as the principal external security actor.
Recent events suggest those foundations are weakening. Reports indicate US–Iran negotiations in Oman were underway when the February strike occurred; attacking amidst diplomacy undermines confidence in negotiation processes. The strike reportedly lacked explicit Congressional authorization and UN Security Council approval, raising questions about the rules that govern use of force. Iran’s retaliatory strikes targeted infrastructure linked to Gulf states, prompting a core strategic concern among those states: if the US cannot shield them from escalation, can it still be relied upon as a security guarantor?
Gulf governments have been gradually diversifying partnerships. China’s growing economic presence—through investment, infrastructure projects and energy ties—offers alternatives to traditional Western alignments. Beijing’s mediation in the 2023 Saudi–Iran rapprochement illustrated that new diplomatic actors can play meaningful regional roles. The region’s deepening economic and political engagement with other powers reduces exclusive dependence on Washington.
The global economic stakes are high. Disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a large share of oil shipments transit, would sharply raise energy prices. Oil above US$100 per barrel would push inflation worldwide, straining both advanced and emerging economies. Such economic fallout would amplify geopolitical shifts, incentivizing states to seek financial and security arrangements outside US-dominated systems. Initiatives within groupings like BRICS to reduce reliance on US-led financial institutions reflect a broader search for alternatives.
Still, it is premature to declare the end of American global leadership. The United States remains the planet’s most capable military power and a central hub in finance and technology. Hegemonic decline, historically, is rarely abrupt; instead it is marked by a slow erosion of confidence and influence. The debate around the February 2026 strike captures this uncertainty. If credibility in US security guarantees continues to wane in regions that once anchored American influence, the international system may evolve toward greater multipolarity, with emerging powers, regional actors and new economic coalitions playing larger roles.
Whether 2026 proves a decisive turning point is uncertain. History shows that moments of strategic overreach can hasten broader transformations. The core question for the United States is whether it can adjust its leadership to a changing world—or risk watching the gradual erosion and eventual passing of the order it helped build.
Kashif Hasan Khan is dean at the School of Graduate Studies and head of the Department of Economics at Paragon International University in Phnom Penh. He serves on the editorial board of the Asian Journal of Economic Modelling and as associate editor of Crossroads of Social Inquiry.
