EDITOR'S CORNER: Politics for Bandits and Global Disorder

With the war in Iran entering its second month, and with renewed talk of Donald Trump’s ambitions tied to Iran’s oil, we are forced to confront an uncomfortable question: what kind of world are we living in?

What does it mean when the leader of the so-called free world appears willing to intervene in nation after nation, driven by access to resources and strategic gain? How might rival powers respond? Countries like Russia and China are always watching, carefully assessing every move made by the United States. And as the saying goes, what is good for one may soon be justified for others.

In this week’s blog, I want to reflect on this reality. Is this the kind of world we want—one where power and profit outweigh principle? What has become of alliances, diplomacy, and the shared goal of promoting democracy?

NO CLEAR AMBITIONS IN IRAN

Let’s take a closer look at the current state of the war in Iran. At the moment, the primary objective seems to be reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Interestingly, it was open before the United States’s attack, and now the push is to “reopen” it following the closure caused by their own actions. A clear case of hypocrisy!

Since February 28, the war hasn’t produced significant strategic gains. It is true that Ali Khamenei has passed away, and his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, has remained largely out of the public eye. But this does not indicate any collapse of the regime. It continues to operate, even amid the loss of much of its higher leadership.

Iran appears to have been well-prepared for a confrontation with the United States. Some reports suggest that the country had been stockpiling supplies and ammunition for at least six months, anticipating a prolonged conflict. This preparation underscores that, despite external assumptions, Iran is far from defenseless. 

A GROUND INVASION POSSIBLE?

There is ongoing speculation that the United States might consider a limited ground operation targeting Kharg Island as part of the conflict with Iran. Kharg Island is a strategic oil export terminal that handles the vast majority of Iran’s crude oil exports and is currently defended by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Capturing the island could disrupt Iran’s ability to export oil, potentially exerting economic pressure. However, there is no confirmation that a full-scale invasion order has been issued, and U.S. discussions have ranged from special operations to limited ground missions rather than an outright long-term occupation.

Iran is a significant oil producer globally, and while exact rankings vary, it remains among the world’s larger producers—a status that gives its oil exports geopolitical weight. Trump has publicly discussed seizing control of Iranian oil infrastructure, including Kharg Island, as part of broader pressure on Iran, but these comments reflect strategic rhetoric and options under consideration rather than a formally declared objective.

If these claims are true, then Iran will almost certainly fight harder than before. With a weakened air force and a crippled navy, a U.S. ground invasion would leave Iran with little choice but to resist fiercely. They might attempt to inflict as many casualties as possible on U.S. forces. How would Trump handle that?

THE WILD WEST

Now let’s look back at the original point of this blog. If Trump launches a ground invasion in Iran to seize their oil capabilities while leaving the current regime in place, it will send a dangerous signal to other powerful nations that invading sovereign countries for their resources is acceptable. Such a precedent could further erode norms against military aggression and reward resource‑driven conquest.

Even invading another country because you disagree with its leadership is troubling enough. What happened in Venezuela earlier this year, and what is unfolding in Iran now, will likely make many authoritarian leaders think twice about their own security and their vulnerability to similar actions by powerful states. If securing resources becomes an acceptable justification for war, the global rules based order that was meant to discourage such behavior could unravel further.

Furthermore, as we discussed earlier, concerns about nuclear capabilities are bound to grow. If leaders around the world see that resource‑rich nations can be invaded with relative impunity, every regime, no matter how unstable or aggressive, might conclude that acquiring powerful deterrents, whether nuclear weapons or other strategic assets, is the only way to ensure they cannot be easily overthrown or exploited.

WHO BEARS THE COSTS?

United States started the war in Iran, and somehow they expect that allies in Europe and Middle East will bear the costs to open the Strait of Hormuz. Because they are the ones benefiting from its opening.

Yet the reality is far more complex. The Strait of Hormuz is not a regional convenience, it is a global economic artery through which roughly one fifth of the world’s oil supply passes, meaning disruptions ripple across continents regardless of who benefits most directly. European and Asian economies, heavily dependent on imported energy, face immediate inflation, industrial slowdowns, and potential recession when flows are interrupted. In that sense, the costs are not simply shifted by Washington, they are structurally unavoidable in an interconnected energy system where shocks propagate globally.

At the same time, reopening the strait is neither quick nor cheap, even for the United States. Military analysts note that escorting shipping or clearing threats could take weeks or months, with significant risks to naval forces operating in a narrow, highly contested waterway. Any multinational effort would therefore require shared burden not just politically, but operationally, including navies, insurance guarantees, and sustained presence. The expectation of allied involvement stems less from opportunism and more from capability gaps and the scale of the task.

Still, the political tension remains, allies are being asked to assume risks tied to a conflict they did not initiate, while the economic fallout, including surging oil prices, disrupted trade, and financial instability, spreads far beyond the battlefield. This creates a fundamental dilemma, even if allies resist military participation, they cannot avoid paying the economic price of inaction.

CONCLUSION 

Trump may have believed that a war in Iran was a strategic move, and removing the head of the regime might have disrupted some of its plans. However, this conflict does not exist in isolation, and its consequences extend far beyond allies alone.

The ripple effects are global, impacting economies, security, and political stability across regions. What begins as a targeted military action can quickly evolve into a broader crisis with unpredictable outcomes.

A peaceful resolution is urgently needed, before casualties mount in the United States, before the global economy suffers irreversible damage, and before the use of force becomes normalized as the default tool of governance.