The issue of war in the Middle East, confrontation with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and efforts to reduce or manage tensions have been analyzed in various contexts; however, the outcome of these analyses points to a common conclusion: contrary to superficial perceptions, the United States did not enter this arena without prior calculation and planning. At the same time, a common error in many analyses is that they continue to seek answers to the question of “who won and who lost?” whereas at this level of conflict, such a binary has no real relevance. What matters is precise timing, the use of multi-layered tools, and the execution of scenarios that gain meaning within the framework of great power calculations, particularly those of the United States and China.
In this context, Donald Trump’s approach was based more than anything on “time,” rather than victory or defeat in the classical sense. He placed his wager on managing time, the intensity, and the scope of the crisis, not on direct military outcomes or even the costs of war. For this reason, six weeks of conflict, the extensive use of various types of weaponry, and the creation of a tense atmosphere were not intended to destroy the opposing side, but rather to recalibrate the balance in broader global equations. Within this framework, Iran effectively became a facilitating actor in the realization of this scenario; an actor that played a significant role both in the escalation of tensions and in their conclusion. For this reason, the end of the war had already been anticipated in the calculations, and prolonging it was fundamentally inconsistent with the logic of this design.
At the center of this equation stood the Strait of Hormuz, a passage that, on the surface, facilitates around ten percent of global oil transit, but in practice has turned into a geopolitical instrument with dimensions far exceeding its actual weight. The emphasis placed on the role of this strait was deliberately designed to draw all major global actors into the arena. Pressure on Iran to respond, particularly the possibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz, was not an accidental consequence, but part of a broader design. Such a scenario would directly involve the interests of Europe, China, and even Russia, placing them before a complex choice: energy security or political independence.
In this regard, Europe found itself in a security trap; a trap formed within the context of “managed tension” and the targeting of the energy economy. At the same time, issues such as Greenland, which had previously been at the forefront of political and media discourse in the United States, were temporarily removed from the agenda. This apparent retreat was not a sign of neglect, but rather part of a temporal prioritization. In fact, the issue of Greenland was merely postponed so that, after managing the Middle East crisis, it could once again be activated as a lever of pressure against Europe. At that stage, the United States could, by citing Europe’s lack of alignment in previous crises, gain greater legitimacy to exert pressure and redefine relations within the framework of NATO. The result of such a process would be a Europe compelled toward flexibility, concessions, and the acceptance of a subordinate role in relation to U.S. demands.
On the other hand, the war in Ukraine and Russia’s interests are not unrelated to this equation. Signs of a tacit convergence between the United States and Russia in containing the long-term threat of China are observable. Within this framework, a weak, dependent Europe caught in the tension between the United States and Russia would serve the interests of both powers. Such a Europe would not only lose its capacity for independent competition but would also become a second-tier actor in the international system. This situation, alongside China’s facing energy challenges and economic pressures, creates a more favorable balance for Moscow and Washington.
At the domestic level in the United States, the midterm elections and the turbulent political environment also play an important role in this design. At a time when public dissatisfaction with foreign interventions and war-driven policies is increasing, creating a global economic shock and then managing it through a ceasefire can help reduce this dissatisfaction. The sharp rise in oil prices to more than $150 per barrel and then bringing them under control is an example of this crisis engineering. In the meantime, China temporarily navigated the crisis by using its reserves, Russia benefited from rising prices, and the United States influenced prices and generated significant revenue by managing the market and releasing its reserves. This cycle demonstrates how a crisis can become a tool for the redistribution of wealth and power on a global scale.
At the same time, the consequences of this process for China are significant. An economy dependent on cheap energy, if faced with disruptions in supply routes, will encounter rising production costs and a slowdown in growth. From here emerges the concept of “choking economic arteries,” a strategy aimed at containing China’s growth without entering into direct military confrontation. Within this framework, countries that supply cheap energy to China are gradually exposed to instability, pressure, or even regime change. Cases such as Venezuela and Iran can be analyzed within this pattern. The disruption or restriction of oil flows from these countries directly affects China’s economic capacity and widens the gap between it and the United States.
Accordingly, Trump and his team, taking into account the relative lag of the United States in certain economic indicators, particularly in comparison to China’s rapid growth, moved toward the use of indirect tools, including controlled instability, limited wars, and pressure on supply chains. This approach not only reduces the costs of a direct war but also enables the simultaneous management of multiple variables.
Ultimately, what is observed in these developments is the deliberate and purposeful entry of the United States into a multi-layered game; a game in which military technology, intelligence capacity, the global economy, and public perception are all simultaneously tested and utilized. Economic shocks, regional tensions, and calculated ceasefires are all components of a larger architecture: the engineering of the future world order. In this order, control of time, crisis management, and dominance over energy flows have replaced the traditional concept of victory on the battlefield.
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here:
