The current Iran crisis could mirror the 1957 Suez Crisis, which marked the transfer of global power from the British Empire to the U.S. If China successfully leverages the situation to its diplomatic and economic advantage, it could signal a similar shift in global power away from the United States.

An expert predicts that the end of the current war will result in a fundamentally different Middle East: more unstable, fragmented into smaller states, and with its geopolitical and military direction primarily shaped by decisions made in Jerusalem, with U.S. security support.

Gulf countries now view the U.S. not as a protector but as a power that dragged them into a war as collateral damage and failed to defend them. This collapse of the old security architecture is causing fractures within the GCC and forcing states like the UAE to seek new, independent security arrangements.

'Losing' in Iran means a strategic retreat due to casualty aversion, not military defeat. This would show the limits of US power, shattering its global image and emboldening adversaries. It would be a '1956 Suez Crisis' moment for The United States.

The US is moving from a global deterrence posture to concentrating massive force for specific operations, as seen with Iran. This strategy denudes other theaters of critical assets, creating windows of opportunity for adversaries like China while allies are left exposed.

The conflict in the Strait of Hormuz is not an isolated shock but a catalyst speeding up the shift towards fragmented supply chains, regional power blocs, and the securitization of essential goods like food and energy.

Current US strategy is rooted in Halford Mackinder's 1904 'Heartland Theory,' which warned that a unified Eurasian landmass (Russia, China, Middle East) would make naval power obsolete. America's actions, like those of the British Empire before it, are designed to prevent this alliance by keeping the 'heartland' divided, with Iran being the critical weak link.

Iran's strategy is not to win a conventional war but to play a waiting game, believing it can withstand damage until the U.S. loses its political will to continue the conflict, especially with an unpopular president facing midterms. This turns the situation into a potential "forever war" where the exit strategy is the main challenge.

The conflict is not an isolated event but a symptom of the world transitioning away from a single US superpower. This new era features competing power blocs like the US, China, and India, a return to a more historically typical state of global affairs.