Edward Gibbon observed that empires usually decay slowly, shaped by long-term structural forces, but that a single strategic error can accelerate that decline. The US–Israeli strike on Iran in February 2026 may be such an accelerating event.
Military clashes in West Asia are frequent, yet this episode could resonate far beyond the battlefield. Analysts compare it to the 1956 Suez Crisis, when a brief Western military success collapsed under American diplomatic pressure, signaling the decline of Britain’s independent global role. The 2026 action against Iran could be a similar inflection point for American influence.
For more than seventy years the United States anchored a global order not only through its armed forces but via institutions, rules, and economic arrangements that promoted stability and growth. China and Russia largely rose within that framework. A central pillar of U.S. influence in the Gulf was a security-for-energy bargain: Washington guaranteed the security of the Gulf monarchies in return for oil trade denominated in dollars, reinforcing the dollar’s central role in finance and ensuring energy flows.
Iran’s 1979 revolution put it outside this arrangement. Since then Tehran has positioned itself as a challenge to U.S. regional influence, cultivating partnerships with groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. This posture intensified Gulf states’ dependence on American protection. For decades U.S. policy in the region rested on three interlocking objectives: contain Iran, preserve the petrodollar system, and guarantee Gulf security. Together those aims bolstered regional development and made Washington the principal external security actor.
Recent developments suggest those foundations are fraying. Reports indicate that talks between the U.S. and Iran in Oman were under way when the February strike occurred; attacking amid diplomacy erodes trust in negotiation processes. The strike reportedly went forward without clear Congressional authorization or UN Security Council endorsement, raising questions about the rules that govern use of force. Iran’s retaliation targeted infrastructure tied to Gulf states, intensifying a crucial worry among those governments: if the U.S. cannot prevent escalation, can it still credibly guarantee their security?
Gulf states have been quietly broadening their partnerships. China’s expanding economic footprint—through investment, infrastructure projects and energy ties—offers a practical alternative to Western alignment. Beijing’s role in mediating the 2023 Saudi–Iran rapprochement showed that other powers can play consequential regional roles. As the Gulf deepens economic and political engagement with non-Western actors, exclusive reliance on Washington diminishes.
The economic risks are severe. A disruption of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, where a large share of global oil passes, would drive prices sharply higher. Oil above US$100 per barrel would add inflationary pressure worldwide, straining advanced and emerging economies alike. Such economic pain would accelerate political realignments and strengthen incentives for states to seek financial and security arrangements outside U.S.-dominated structures. Moves within groupings like BRICS to reduce dependence on Western financial institutions are part of that broader trend.
Still, it is premature to pronounce the death of American leadership. The United States remains the world’s most capable military power and a central hub for finance and technology. Historical hegemonic decline is typically gradual, marked by an erosion of credibility and influence rather than sudden collapse. The debate over the February 2026 strike captures that ambiguity: if U.S. security credibility continues to erode in regions that once anchored its global role, we may see a steady shift toward greater multipolarity, with rising powers, regional actors and alternative economic coalitions taking larger roles.
Whether 2026 proves a decisive turning point is unknown. History shows that moments of strategic overreach can hasten longer-term transformations. The central question for Washington is whether it can adapt its leadership to changing realities—or risk watching the slow dissolution of the international order it helped construct.
Kashif Hasan Khan is dean of the School of Graduate Studies and head of the Department of Economics at Paragon International University in Phnom Penh. He sits on the editorial board of the Asian Journal of Economic Modelling and is an associate editor of Crossroads of Social Inquiry.
