The writer is an economist, anchor, geopolitical analyst and the President of All Pakistan Private Schools’ Federation
president@Pakistanprivateschools.com
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has declared a symbolic victory, stating that Iran has stopped the strongest nuclear power, the United States, from achieving its goals. In the shadowed calculus of great-power confrontation, where nuclear arsenals once promised instant deterrence, a quieter, more enduring form of defiance has rewritten the script of the 21st century. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s declaration—that Tehran has halted the world’s preeminent nuclear power, the United States, from securing even a single strategic objective over nearly a month of sustained pressure—resonates not as mere rhetoric, but as a historic inflection point. “No nation in history has stood against the greatest nuclear-armed power on earth… and stopped them from achieving a single goal,” he proclaimed. Iran rejected Washington’s 15-point peace proposal—laden with demands for nuclear rollback and unconditional reopening of the Strait—as one-sided and unjust. In its place, Tehran tabled five unambiguous conditions: an immediate cessation of aggression, ironclad guarantees against recurrence, full war reparations, de-escalation across all fronts involving allied resistance axes, and formal recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the Hormuz waterway. Araghchi’s insistence that mediated messages do not equate to negotiations, and that sanctions relief remains the non-negotiable prerequisite, underscores a deeper truth: the era of diktat diplomacy is fracturing. This is no battlefield triumph measured in territory or casualties; it is a symbolic victory that exposes the brittle architecture of unipolar dominance. In an era when American military supremacy was presumed absolute, Iran’s resilience has transformed the Strait of Hormuz from a chokepoint into a mirror—reflecting back the limits of coercive power, the fragility of global energy arteries, and the accelerating dawn of a multipolar order. Araghchi emphasized that no nation in history has stood against the greatest nuclear-armed power on earth for nearly a month and stopped them from achieving a single goal, calling it a point of pride for all of humanity. Iran’s declaration of symbolic victory amidst the ongoing conflict has sent shockwaves through the global energy market, exposing vulnerabilities and creating unlikely winners. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) emerges as a significant loser, with its safe haven status compromised, while Russia reaps the benefits of soaring oil prices and increased market share. Russia’s oil industry is experiencing a windfall, with Urals crude jumping from $40 to $72 per barrel. The country’s strategic position allows it to capitalize on the supply shortages, making it an unlikely safety valve for the global market. China, on the other hand, stands to gain significantly in the long term. Its investments in renewable energy and electric vehicles position it to dominate the energy transition, with the capacity to produce essential components. The conflict has accelerated the shift towards a multipolar energy order, with China, Russia, and Iran forming an “Eastern Axis” to challenge Western-dominated structures. This realignment is driven by China’s growing energy demands and Russia’s desire to expand its influence. The US had presented a 15-point peace plan to Iran, which included strict limits on its nuclear program and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. However, Iran has rejected the plan, calling it one-sided and unfair. Instead, Iran has presented its own five conditions for ending the war, including a complete halt to acts of aggression, guarantees that the conflict will not restart, payment of war damages and reparations, an end to fighting across all fronts involving allied resistance groups, and recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has declared a symbolic victory, stating that Iran has stopped the strongest nuclear power, the United States, from achieving its goals. Araghchi emphasized that no nation in history has stood against the greatest nuclear-armed power on earth for nearly a month and stopped them from achieving a single goal, calling it a point of pride for all of humanity. The US had presented a 15-point peace plan to Iran, which included strict limits on its nuclear program and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. However, Iran has rejected the plan, calling it one-sided and unfair. Instead, Iran has presented its own five conditions for ending the war, including a complete halt to acts of aggression, guarantees that the conflict will not restart, payment of war damages and reparations, an end to fighting across all fronts involving allied resistance groups, and recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. Araghchi has denied that Iran is negotiating with the US, stating that the exchange of messages through mediators does not constitute talks. He emphasized that Iran’s priority is the removal of unlawful and unjust sanctions, and that any negotiation must be based on tangible and effective measures. The conflict between the US and Iran has been ongoing, with both sides imposing sanctions and engaging in military build-ups. The US has imposed new sanctions on Iran, targeting its petroleum sales and ballistic missile programs. Iran has responded by threatening to take action in the Bab al-Mandab Strait if provoked. The escalating conflict in Iran has had an unexpected boon for two major players: Russia and Iran. Russia is emerging as a major beneficiary, earning up to $150 million more weekly from oil exports, with India and China being major buyers. The US has granted temporary waivers to allow these countries to continue purchasing Russian oil. Meanwhile, Iran’s oil exports are also increasing, with sanctions relief injecting over $14 billion into Tehran’s coffers. As the world grapples with the repercussions of the war, these nations are reaping the economic benefits, with Russia’s oil sales soaring and Iran’s oil exports thriving sans sanctions. Russia, already under Western sanctions, is now selling its oil at a premium, fetching over $100 per barrel – a significant jump from the $60 range. This windfall is bolstering Moscow’s coffers, potentially financing its military endeavors, including its involvement in Ukraine. Iran, too, is cashing in on the situation. With US sanctions temporarily eased, Iranian oil is flowing into global markets, commanding higher prices. This influx of revenue could strengthen Tehran’s position, undermining the intended impact of sanctions.
the question will not be whether multipolarity has arrived—but whether the architects of the old order possess the humility to navigate it. Indeed, the U.S. is funding a war against itself. Iran’s symbolic victory is not the end of American influence; it is the beginning of a world in which influence must be earned, not inherited. History, it seems, still favors those who master the art of endurance over the illusion of omnipotence.
Trump’s approach has backfired, inadvertently empowering adversaries. “The U.S. is funding a war against itself,” says Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher on Iran. The move has raised concerns about strategic miscalculations and the fragile nature of global energy markets. As the conflict continues to unfold, the implications for global economics and geopolitics are profound. The war’s impact on energy prices, inflation, and recession risks is being closely watched, with some predicting a potential stagflation scenario. The Iran conflict is having a significant impact on the global economy, particularly on energy prices. Russia has delivered its S-400 defense system to Iran, which Iran has installed in Bushehr, Natanz and Isfahan. The US sent missile supplies to Middle Eastern states worth $58 billion, the US sent these missile supplies to nine Middle Eastern states, and Iran destroyed the shipping fleet that brought them. America is trying to reach Kharg Island by sea or by airdrop or with the help of a nearby country, but it is not that easy. Iran can launch any kind of attack on America by sea. There is a 20-mile route between Kharg Island and Iran from where it is not a problem for Iran to target US forces on the island with rockets, missiles, and boats. US does not just have to land and then ensure occupation there, which is not that easy. Even if America occupies Kharg, the Strait of Hormuz will still remain closed. Naval fleets will still not be able to pass through there. Iran’s command and control system is such that it is quite strong there. After the US attack on Kharg Island, if Iran attacks water plants, there will be no drinking water in the Middle East. Submarines are coming from Britain, which are blind corners. The war has led to a surge in oil prices, with Russia emerging as a major beneficiary due to increased oil sales and lifted sanctions. In fact, Russia is earning up to $150 million more each week from oil exports, with India and China being major buyers. The conflict has also exposed weaknesses in the US defense systems, with Iran destroying or disabling several US radar systems and drones. This has raised concerns about the US’s ability to defend its allies in the region. Now, most of the Gulf countries realised, neither Israel can ever be pleased nor can peace and tranquility be bought by giving money to America. Trump’s son-in-law collected a lot of money from Arab countries, but despite this, wars, explosions and attacks in Arab countries have not stopped. Rather, now Israel is trying to push these Arab countries into a war against Iran. Now it is time for Arab countries to understand the fact that not everything can be obtained from America. The economic consequences of the conflict are far-reaching, with businesses in the US, Europe, and Japan reporting weaker sentiment and higher inflation expectations. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has warned of a “significant level of downside risk” for the global economy. The Iran conflict is having far-reaching economic implications, particularly on energy prices. The war has led to a surge in oil prices, with Brent crude jumping 15% to $83 per barrel, and gasoline prices in the US rising 7.5% to $3.20 per gallon. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has described the situation as the “greatest global energy security challenge in history”. The conflict has also disrupted global supply chains, with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz affecting 20% of global oil supplies and significant liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities. This has led to concerns about inflation, with the European Central Bank (ECB) warning of a potential stagflation scenario. Russia is emerging as a key beneficiary of the conflict, with its oil sales surging and earning up to $150 million more each week. India and China are major buyers of Russian oil, and the US has granted temporary waivers to allow these countries to continue purchasing Russian oil. The economic fallout is expected to be long-lasting, with potential impacts on global growth, inflation, and energy security. The IEA has warned that the conflict could lead to a global recession if oil prices remain above $100 per barrel. The Iran conflict is having far-reaching economic implications, particularly on energy prices. The war has led to a surge in oil prices, with Brent crude jumping 15% to $83 per barrel, and gasoline prices in the US rising 7.5% to $3.20 per gallon. Russia is emerging as a key beneficiary, earning up to $150 million more each week from oil exports, with India and China being major buyers. The conflict has also disrupted global supply chains, with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz affecting 20% of global oil supplies and significant liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities. This has led to concerns about inflation, with the European Central Bank (ECB) warning of a potential stagflation scenario. The economic fallout is expected to be long-lasting, with potential impacts on global growth, inflation, and energy security. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has described the situation as the “greatest global energy security challenge in history”. The Iran conflict is having a significant impact on global energy markets, with oil prices surging over 50% to above $110 per barrel. The conflict has disrupted oil supplies, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital trade route for 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas. This has led to soaring prices for transport fuels, pressuring consumers and businesses worldwide. The International Energy Agency (IEA) warns that the crisis is worse than the 1970s oil shocks, with prolonged disruption to vital energy arteries potentially causing widespread economic damage. Governments are taking measures to conserve supplies, including releasing strategic oil reserves and implementing energy-efficient measures. The Iran conflict is having a significant impact on global energy markets, with oil prices surging over 50% to above $110 per barrel. The conflict has disrupted oil supplies, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital trade route for 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas. This has led to soaring prices for transport fuels, pressuring consumers and businesses worldwide. As global energy security, the International Energy Agency (IEA) describes the situation as the “greatest global energy security challenge in history”. Oil Prices of brent crude jumped 15% to $83 per barrel, with predictions it could reach $100-$150 per barrel if disruptions persist. The European Central Bank (ECB) warns of potential stagflation, with inflation expected to breach 5% in the UK. Pakistan’s economy is struggling, with fuel costs and flight tickets surging, and the government imposing austerity measures. What makes this moment analytically seismic is its fusion of military endurance, economic arbitrage, and diplomatic inversion. The United States, having dispatched $58 billion in missile systems to nine Middle Eastern partners—only to see Iran neutralize the delivery fleet and install Russian S-400 batteries at Bushehr, Natanz, and Isfahan—now confronts the logistical nightmare of Kharg Island. Even a hypothetical amphibious or airborne seizure would leave the Strait contested, Iran’s command-and-control intact, and regional water infrastructure vulnerable to retaliatory strikes. This is not attrition warfare; it is the demonstration that asymmetric resolve can neutralize symmetric overmatch. The economic aftershocks have inverted the intended script of sanctions and isolation. Global oil markets, already convulsing from the Hormuz closure that throttles 20 percent of seaborne crude and vital LNG flows. Russia, long the target of Western isolation, has emerged as the conflict’s greatest unintended beneficiary: Temporary U.S. waivers for these buyers have inadvertently subsidized Moscow’s fiscal resilience—potentially underwriting its Ukrainian campaign—while Iran’s own oil exports, buoyed by de facto sanctions relief, have funneled over $14 billion into its coffers. As one senior Iran analyst observed, “The U.S. is funding a war against itself.” The UAE, once a pristine safe haven for capital flight and energy arbitrage, now watches its sanctuary status erode amid regional volatility. Gulf capitals, having poured billions into American security guarantees and normalization deals, are awakening to a harsher calculus: neither Israeli maximalism nor American largesse can purchase perpetual tranquility. The very alliances forged to contain Iran are now being stress-tested by it. Yet the true thought-provoking undercurrent lies in the long-arc realignment. China, with its massive investments in renewables, electric vehicles, and battery supply chains, stands poised to dominate the very energy transition this crisis accelerates. The nascent “Eastern Axis”—China’s insatiable demand, Russia’s sanctioned hydrocarbons, and Iran’s strategic geography—forms a counterweight architecture that bypasses Western financial and maritime gatekeepers. This is not ideological solidarity but pragmatic convergence: a multipolar energy order in which the dollar’s weaponization loses potency and supply-chain resilience trumps market access. The International Energy Agency has labeled this the “greatest global energy security challenge in history,” eclipsing the 1970s shocks. Central banks from the ECB to the Fed now confront stagflationary ghosts—inflation breaching 5 percent in parts of Europe, U.S. gasoline at $3.20 and climbing, supply-chain fractures rippling into Japan and beyond. Businesses report collapsing sentiment; the OECD flags “significant downside risk” for global growth. Pakistan’s austerity measures and surging fuel costs offer a microcosm of the pain radiating outward.
Indeed, the U.S. is funding a war against itself. Meanwhile, the UAE’s safe-haven status evaporated, Gulf capitals discovered that neither Israeli maximalism nor American largesse can purchase perpetual tranquility, and China positioned itself to dominate the very energy transition this crisis accelerates. The “Eastern Axis”—China’s renewables and battery supremacy, Russia’s hydrocarbons, Iran’s geography—is not ideological; it is pragmatic convergence. Supply-chain resilience is replacing market access; the dollar’s weaponization is losing potency. This is not the end of American power; it is the beginning of a world in which American power must compete on equal terms. Has the unipolar moment, sustained by the post-Cold War illusion of unchallenged primacy, finally encountered its empirical rebuttal? Iran’s stand—technological defiance, economic improvisation, and narrative command—suggests that sovereignty, when fused with strategic depth and opportunistic alliances, can impose costs that even a nuclear hegemon finds prohibitive. Trump’s approach, intended to reassert leverage, has instead gifted adversaries windfall revenues and accelerated the very de-dollarization and energy diversification Washington sought to forestall. The world is not merely witnessing a regional skirmish; it is observing the quiet dismantling of a monopoly on outcomes. In the coming months, as oil reserves drain, inflation expectations harden, and the Eastern Axis cements its supply lines, the question will not be whether multipolarity has arrived—but whether the architects of the old order possess the humility to navigate it. History has always favored those who master endurance over the illusion of omnipotence. The question this poses—and refuses to answer neatly—is whether the architects of the old order possess the humility to navigate the new one. The unipolar moment, sustained by the post-Cold War illusion of unchallenged primacy, has encountered its empirical rebuttal. Iran did not dismantle American influence; it simply proved that influence must henceforth be earned through adaptability rather than inherited through legacy. Iran’s symbolic victory is not the end of American influence; it is the beginning of a world in which influence must be earned, not inherited. History, it seems, still favors those who master the art of endurance over the illusion of omnipotence.
