ECONOMYNEXT – The confrontation between the US–Israel alliance and Iran is further eroding an old order and established international norms, with the US withdrawing from multilateral commitments, leaving a power vacuum to be filled by rivals, according to an analysis by Vietnamese scholars.

“The foundational principles of the Westphalian system, based on territorial sovereignty and the inviolability of diplomatic missions, are being directly challenged,” writes Nguyen Thi Thu Nga from the Institute of Politics and International Relations, Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics and Le Van Huong from Embassy of Vietnam in Sri Lanka.

“The targeting and elimination of senior leaders, along with attacks on diplomatic facilities, have undermined the norms governing state behavior.

“At the same time, the United Nations Security Council has fallen into a state of complete “paralysis” due to the veto power of major states and deep divisions in interpreting the rules of the international system.

“When the most powerful states no longer agree on how the system should function, international rules become largely symbolic.

“The conflict in Gaza and the direct confrontation between the United States and Israel with Iran have acted as catalysts accelerating this decline.”

US – Israel alliance pursues an iron fist strategy with unconditional backing from Washington, Iran adopts an ‘escalate to de-escalate’ approach through the Axis of Resistance network and a “mosaic defense” model, the study says.

The US withdrawal from multilateral commitments has shaped the reality of a new order in which Washington is increasingly absent from collective coordination.

This power vacuum has been rapidly filled by U.S. rivals and emerging blocs such as BRICS and the Shanghai Co-operation Organization (SCO), shifting the region toward a multipolar and overlapping order.

The future of the Middle East will depend on the strategic autonomy and flexible balancing of regional states amid these new webs of power, the authors say.

The full study is reproduced below:

Reshaping the Middle East Order : The US – Israel confronation with Iran from an International Relations perspective

Nguyen Thi Thu Nga, ¹ , Le Van Huong²

The Middle East has long been likened to the “epicenter” of global geopolitical earthquakes. Situated at the crossroads of three continents—Asia, Europe, and Africa—the region is not only the cradle of civilizations but also holds a large share of the world’s essential energy resources³ . These distinctive geopolitical and geoeconomic factors have made it a focal point of intense power competition among major powers and regional states. For decades, the region has rarely escaped Western intervention, where short-term interests have often been prioritized over long-term stability. However, developments from late 2023 to early 2026 have revealed an even harsher reality: The Middle East is undergoing a profound restructuring of power, akin to the transformations that followed the end of the Cold War.

The current context is marked by a serious erosion of the old order and the paralysis of international norms. The foundational principles of the Westphalian system, based on territorial sovereignty and the inviolability of diplomatic missions, are being directly challenged. The targeting and elimination of senior leaders, along with attacks on diplomatic facilities, have undermined the norms governing state behavior. At the same time, the United Nations Security Council has fallen into a state of complete “paralysis” due to the veto power of major states and deep divisions in interpreting the rules of the international system. When the most powerful states no longer agree on how the system should function, international rules become largely symbolic. The conflict in Gaza and the direct confrontation between the United States and Israel with Iran have acted as catalysts accelerating this decline.

Amid this turbulence, humanity is confronting one of the defining paradoxes of the modern era. For more than 400 years, war among great powers has been the fastest way to dismantle an old order and establish a new one. Yet in the current age, this method has become obsolete and catastrophic in nature. The existence of nuclear weapons has imposed costs so immense that any direct military ambition risks becoming an act of self-destruction, effectively turning large-scale war into suicide. At the same time, deep economic interdependence through global supply chains means that any major conflict could trigger systemic shocks, threatening the political survival of leaders everywhere. As a result, a new order is not emerging from a single dramatic rupture but is instead being shaped through persistent, indirect, and complex cycles of confrontation.

The confrontation among the United States, Israel, and Iran lies at the center of this evolving balance of power. Under the second administration of Donald Trump, the United States has pursued an “iron fist” policy, combining elements of isolationism and expansionism, prioritizing bilateral relations while sidelining multilateral institutions. Unconditional support from the Trump administration has removed many of the constraints on Israel, encouraging it to pursue the complete elimination of Iran’s nuclear capabilities in order to assert itself as the region’s sole economic and technological power. In contrast, Iran has wagered on a strategy of “escalate to de-escalate,” leveraging its “Axis of Resistance” network and a “mosaic defense” model to exert multidimensional pressure on its adversaries. This high-stakes contest has driven global oil prices up to $115 per barrel (March 2026), effectively turning energy security and global information infrastructure into “hostages” of the conflict⁴

This reality is shaping a scenario in which the relative power of the United States is declining, making it increasingly difficult for the Trump administration to maintain a dominant role in shaping the international order. As the United States retreats from multilateral commitments, the resulting power vacuum does not remain unfilled but is rapidly occupied by rivals such as China and Russia, along with emerging blocs like BRICS and the SCO. The Middle East has now become a testing ground for a multipolar order, where power is no longer concentrated in a single superpower but dispersed across a complex network of overlapping centers. In this context, states are compelled to enhance their strategic autonomy and flexibly balance among competing camps in order to survive. This article will analyze these power interactions and explore the prospects of a new regional order gradually taking shape amid the intertwined dynamics of conflict and diplomacy.

1. Strategic Factors in the Confrontation

The current confrontation among the United States, Israel, and Iran extends beyond the military dimension; it also represents a clash of political doctrines and strategic visions among major powers with far-reaching influence. This is a complex process of interaction between the ambition of the U.S.–Israel alliance to establish a unipolar position and Iran’s efforts to sustain its influence through an asymmetric network.

Trump Doctrine 2.0: The Convergence of Isolationism and Expansionism. U.S. foreign policy under the second administration of President Donald Trump has marked a turning point in the global order. It is described as a new and potentially dangerous combination of “isolationism” and “expansionism.” On the one hand, it entails direct attacks on the foundations of the existing global order and withdrawal from key multilateral institutions. On the other hand, the United States demonstrates expansionist tendencies through unilateral sanctions and military imposition at strategic hotspots. In the Middle East, this doctrine no longer maintains the role of a neutral “coordinator” but instead shifts toward an openly “hostile” posture toward the existing order. The United States prioritizes bilateral relations to maximize narrow interests rather than adhering to multilateral commitments. Within this framework, the U.S.–Israel alliance becomes the core axis of power, aimed at safeguarding security and reshaping the entire regional geopolitical map in its favor.

Unconditional Patronage: A Diplomatic “Shield” and a Military “Sword”. The “Iron Fist” strategy is reinforced by strong support for Israel, particularly through the provision of advanced weaponry and the creation of a diplomatic shield at the United Nations Security Council. This backing enables Israel to maintain operational freedom with limited pressure from international sanctioning mechanisms, even amid allegations related to Gaza⁵ . Political commitments from successive U.S. administrations, regardless of internal changes, have contributed to shaping a highly asymmetric regional security environment. As a result, the principle of legal equality among states—one of the foundations of the Westphalian system—is facing serious challenges.

Israel’s Objectives: Technological Power and Singular Dominance. Israel believes it is facing a historic opportunity to establish a unipolar order in the Middle East. With the goal of completely eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities and ballistic missile systems to permanently remove an existential threat, Israel leverages its position as a “startup nation” with superior technological strength to conduct highly precise warfare. With research and development (R&D) spending reaching nearly 6% of GDP—the highest in the world —Israel uses this advantage to dominate strategic technology sectors such as artificial intelligence and cybersecurity⁷ . Beyond military power, Israel also aspires to control key trade routes through the proposed Ben-Gurion Canal project, intended to supplement or potentially replace the Suez Canal⁸ . If successfully implemented, this project would elevate Israel’s status to that of a major regional hub for trade and finance. Israel is striving to become a leading center for technology and logistics, extending its influence on a global scale.

The Paradox of Deterrence and the Erosion of U.S. Credibility. The strategy of strong backing for Israel has created a difficult-to-manage strategic paradox. When Israel believes it can act with minimal constraints, its leaders have little incentive to heed external calls for restraint. Limitations in the ability to persuade allies have weakened the authority of international mechanisms, particularly the United Nations Security Council. The veto power of major states has rendered many international norms largely symbolic, while violence continues to escalate in contested territories. Consequently, the credibility of efforts to uphold human rights is challenged, creating a power vacuum that rival states and other alliances are seeking to fill.

2.Iran and the “Axis of Resistance”: An Asymmetric Counterstrategy

Proxy Network Architecture: Iran’s “Extended Arm”. Iran has steadily built the “Axis of Resistance” network across the Middle East as a key strategic instrument. This system includes Shiite militias in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthi forces in Yemen. Iran’s primary objective is to expand regional influence and counter external pressures without engaging directly in combat. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), particularly the Quds Force, plays a central role in providing financial support, equipment, and training to these groups. Hezbollah is often regarded as the strongest force, possessing a large arsenal of missiles aimed at Israel. In Iraq, militias under the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) conduct operations to exert pressure on foreign military bases. This strategy allows Iran to maintain plausible deniability while generating multidimensional pressure within the regional security environment.

“Mosaic Defense” Model: Adapting the Proxy Strategy. The current conflict has significantly altered Iran’s traditional centralized command structure, forcing its proxy network to adapt toward a decentralized model. The assassination of several senior IRGC commanders has accelerated the shift to a “mosaic defense” framework, in which militias operate with greater autonomy. Local commanders can make independent tactical decisions, creating a form of “strategic decentralization” that preserves flexibility and resilience. This transformation makes the actions of the “Axis of Resistance” difficult to predict, reflecting the characteristics of proxy warfare in an asymmetric power competition. Incidents such as Iran’s air defense allegedly shooting down a U.S. F-35 stealth fighter are often cited as demonstrations of its enduring deterrent capability. Even without direct, high-intensity engagement, the network serves as a tool for maintaining multidimensional pressure and shaping the balance of power in the regional security landscape.
<->
The “Escalate to De-escalate” Gamble: Targeting Economic Arteries. Iran’s “escalate to de-escalate” strategy exemplifies a classic deterrence approach in international relations, whereby a state increases conflict intensity to impose costs on an adversary, compelling them to seek de-escalation. Beyond military targets, Iran has expanded its focus to critical regional economic arteries, including oil facilities, ports, and airports in Kuwait, the UAE, and Qatar. This approach reflects an asymmetric strategy, using tools such as UAVs and missiles to exert indirect pressure on the global energy security system. The rise in international oil prices demonstrates the ripple effects of this strategy on global supply chains . Additionally, Iran’s warnings regarding submarine Internet cables in the Persian Gulf can be seen as a form of “expanded deterrence,” diversifying its leverage in an environment where economic and technological security are tightly interconnected. Overall, this strategy illustrates Iran’s effort to shape the regional balance of power through a combination of military and economic deterrence.

Strategic Risks: Isolation and Economic Exhaustion. Iran’s escalation strategy carries the risk of counterproductive outcomes by placing Gulf states in direct confrontation. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other nations may consider retaliatory measures to protect economic interests, reflecting the logic of balance-of-power theory in international relations. With a 2025 defense budget of $78 billion—three times that of Iran—Riyadh demonstrates a significant counterweight in the regional balance. Despite possessing oil resources, Iran’s economy remains heavily dependent on trade with neighbors, accounting for roughly 60% of total commercial activity, highlighting its vulnerability amid interdependence. Expanding attacks to include economic partners could lead to long-term isolation, weakening national capacity post-conflict. Even achieving a symbolic “victory” may leave Iran emerging from the crisis with diminished power and restricted international integration. From a theoretical perspective, this illustrates the inherent risks of an escalation strategy in a regional security environment, where political and economic costs can easily outweigh the initial deterrent benefits.

3. Systemic Impacts from an International Relations Perspective

The current conflict in the Middle East has extended beyond the scope of a traditional regional dispute, creating profound shocks to the structures and operational norms of the international system. From an international relations perspective, this can be seen as a process of power restructuring, in which legal barriers and old norms are challenged, paving the way for a harsher reality of power.

Erosion of Foundational Principles. The international order based on the Westphalian system (1648), which emphasizes territorial sovereignty, non-intervention, and legal equality among states, is facing direct challenges. Targeting senior leaders on third-party territory illustrates a dangerous shift in compliance with international norms. The attack on Iran’s consulate in Damascus, resulting in the deaths of senior generals, highlights the diminishing inviolability of diplomatic premises—a core symbol of international law. When actual power can replace legal rules in defining the limits of action, Westphalian principles become largely symbolic, reflecting an anarchic state from a realist perspective.

Paralysis of Multilateralism and the Security Council. The United Nations Security Council, designed to maintain collective peace and security, is paralyzed due to divisions among permanent powers. The repeated use of vetoes to protect the interests of allies demonstrates the prioritization of power politics over multilateral consensus. From an institutional theory perspective, this reflects the weakening of international institutions when they can no longer regulate state behavior. As a result, international norms are eroded from within, undermining confidence in the UN’s ability to create peace.

Energy Security and Geoeconomics. Iran’s “escalate to de-escalate” strategy exemplifies the use of economic tools as a form of asymmetric deterrence. Strikes on oil facilities and ports in Kuwait demonstrate efforts to exert indirect pressure on the global energy system. International oil prices rising above $100 per barrel in March 2026 illustrate the conflict’s ripple effects on global supply chains and the link between energy security and international political stability¹⁰ . From the perspective of complex interdependence theory, energy becomes a “hostage” in the geopolitical game, increasing political costs for dependent states.

Weaponization of Infrastructure and Geoeconomic Ambitions. In modern warfare, information and logistics infrastructure are weaponized as tools of asymmetric pressure. Threats to submarine Internet cables and strategic ports indicate a shift from traditional warfare to infrastructure-based conflict. At the same time, Israel’s pursuit of geoeconomic ambitions through the Ben-Gurion Canal project represents an initiative capable of altering global trade balances if successful . From the perspective of structural power theory, control over trade flows and strategic infrastructure allows a state to reshape regional order and extend influence beyond the military domain.

The systemic impacts on legal norms, institutions, and the economy demonstrate that the U.S.-led unipolar order is declining, giving way to a multipolar structure. Within this power vacuum, flexible alliances and emerging powers are asserting their roles. From an international relations theory standpoint, this illustrates a shift from a rule-based order to a power-based order, where economic, technological, and infrastructure factors increasingly shape the international balance of power.

4 Prospects for a New Regional Order

The conflict in the Middle East not only reflects a regional dispute but also reveals cracks in the global unipolar order. Rather than resulting in an anarchic vacuum, the current situation is paving the way for a complex, multi-layered power structure, in which emerging centers of power are redefining the “rules of the game” during the post-unipolar transition.

Relative U.S. Retrenchment and New Forms of Intervention. Although the United States maintains economic and military superiority, its engagement with multilateral institutions it once built has declined. Under the second Trump administration, Washington adopted a more pragmatic approach, prioritizing bilateral relations and short-term interests. From an institutional theory perspective, this reflects a weakening of liberal institutionalism, as a superpower reduces its role in maintaining a rules-based order.

Power Vacuums and Rival Fill-ins. The power vacuum in the Middle East has created opportunities for other major powers and multilateral forums to increase their influence. China has expanded its role through economic projects, UN budget contributions, and peacekeeping participation. Alliances such as BRICS, SCO, and ASEAN have emerged as alternative coordinating mechanisms, reflecting a trend toward multipolarity. The 2025 SCO summit in Tianjin demonstrated the capacity for Eurasian coordination in resisting imposed policies, signaling a shift of power focus toward the East.

Geoeconomics and the New Structure of Global Trade. Agreements such as the upgraded RCEP and CAFTA have created a massive trade network accounting for roughly 30% of global GDP, reinforcing the Asia-Pacific region as a new center of international order. From a structural power perspective, control over trade flows and strategic infrastructure becomes a crucial tool for reshaping the balance of power.

Multipolar and Overlapping Power Structures. The future order in the Middle East is unlikely to operate as a simple chessboard led by a few superpowers; instead, it will form a complex network of overlapping power centers. These centers operate according to different logics—technological, military, and geoeconomic—reflecting the characteristics of a multipolar structure in international relations theory.

Israel – Technological and Geoeconomic Power. Israel is seeking to establish itself as a new power center through its knowledge economy and “startup nation” ecosystem. With the world’s highest R&D spending, Israel has turned artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and defense technology into structural pillars of power capable of influencing international financial institutions. Geoeconomically, the Ben-Gurion Canal project aims to supplement or replace the Suez Canal; if successful, Israel would control a critical global trade artery, consolidating geostrategic influence without full reliance on external military backing.

Iran – Strategic Counterbalance Based on Autonomy. In contrast to Israel’s technological power, Iran maintains its counterbalance through autonomous military capabilities and the broad regional influence of the “Axis of Resistance.” Its ability to defend and retaliate against pressure from the U.S.–Israel alliance is perceived as a form of “dignity victory,” reinforcing regime legitimacy. Iran is also pursuing long-term recovery strategies, leveraging Asian partners and Eurasian connectivity initiatives to enhance economic security. By combining asymmetric military strength with strategic positioning in the Persian Gulf, Iran ensures an indispensable role in any regional security framework, creating a persistent strategic balance with Israel.

Middle Powers’ Strategic Autonomy. Middle powers such as India and Saudi Arabia are emerging as key actors in maintaining the balance of a multipolar order. Rather than choosing sides, they are enhancing strategic autonomy and pursuing flexible balancing policies. Saudi Arabia, with a 2025 defense budget of $78 billion, asserts itself as an independent power center, leveraging financial and energy tools to exert influence. Meanwhile, efforts to de-dollarize trade transactions among India, China, and Russia demonstrate a strategy to reduce dependence on the U.S. financial system.

Risks to Traditional Financial Powers. The shift of influence toward technology and strategic infrastructure challenges countries that rely on oil and conventional finance. Even wealthy states like the UAE and Qatar face declining influence if they fail to adapt to new technological flows and trade routes driven by Israel or China. From a structural power perspective, control over capital and technological infrastructure becomes decisive in shaping future societies and international order.

The developments in the Middle East indicate that the unipolar order is undergoing a transition, with the rise of multiple power centers and a relative decline in the U.S.’s coordinating role in multilateral institutions. From an international relations perspective, this exemplifies the shift from a rules-based order to a multipolar structure, where power is distributed across a complex network of great powers and regional alliances.

Conclusion

The ongoing power restructuring in the Middle East reflects the transition from a unipolar order to a complex multipolar structure, where power is no longer concentrated in a single actor but distributed across overlapping networks of great powers and regional alliances. From an international relations perspective, this demonstrates the simultaneous operation of multiple power logics—from technology and asymmetric military capabilities to geoeconomics—reshaping the functioning of the international system.

A major paradox of our era is that war, constrained by nuclear deterrence and deep economic interdependence, is no longer an effective tool for restructuring order, while peace cannot be achieved solely through diplomatic agreements. This highlights the limits of liberal institutionalism and underscores the relevance of realism in explaining persistent power competition.

A key lesson for states is the importance of strategic autonomy and flexible balancing. Autonomy does not imply isolation but rather finding a path of development suited to a globally interconnected environment. Middle powers such as India and Saudi Arabia exemplify this trend by strengthening endogenous capacities to turn challenges into opportunities.

The Middle East today can be viewed as a “laboratory” for new global governance norms in the post-unipolar era. It is a testing ground for the coexistence of asymmetric military confrontation and pragmatic geoeconomic cooperation. The future of the region depends on establishing a substantive power balance, in which Israel, with its technological advantages, and Iran, with its strategic influence network, coexist in a dynamic equilibrium. Ultimately, the prosperity of the region and the world will hinge on each country’s ability to position itself appropriately within the modern global power-value chain.

Footnotes

1. PhD. Nguyen Thi Thu Nga, Institute of Politics and International Relations, Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics.
2. Master of International Relations, Le Van Huong, Embassy of Vietnam in Sri Lanka.
3. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “World Oil Transit Chokepoints,” updated 2025.
4. Scott Disavino (2026), Oil prices plunge 11% on US-Iran talks to resolve hostilities in the Middle East, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-prices-rise-after-us-iran-threaten-hit-energy-targets-middle-east-2026-03-22/
5. Sharon Wrobel, “Fought without a Single Bullet: Official Warns of Coming ‘AI-Driven Cyber War’,” The Times of Israel, 2026, https://www.timesofisrael.com/fought-without-a-single-bullet-official-warns-of-coming-ai-driven-cyber-war/
6. World Bank, “Research and Development Expenditure (% of GDP) – Israel,” 2025. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS?locations=IL
7. Sharon Wrobel, “Fought without a Single Bullet: Official Warns of Coming ‘AI-Driven Cyber War’,” The Times of Israel, 2026. https://www.timesofisrael.com/fought-without-a-single-bullet-official-warns-of-coming-ai-driven-cyber-war/
8. “The £77 Billion Canal to Rival Suez Canal,” 2oceansvibe, January 7, 2025. , https://www.2oceansvibe.com/2025/01/07/the-77-billion-canal-to-rival-suez-canal-and-connect-the-red-and-mediterranean-seas/
9. Goldman Sachs Research, “Oil Price Forecast 2026,” cited in Reuters, March 2026.
10. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Short-Term Energy Outlook,” March 2026. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/
11. Carnegie Endowment. (2025). BRICS and the New World Order. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/03/brics-expansion-and-world-order

References

1. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “BRICS Expansion and World Order”, 2025.
2. Goldman Sachs Research. “Oil Price Forecast 2026”, 2026.
3. Sharon Wrobel. “Fought without a Single Bullet”. The Times of Israel, 2026.
4. U.S. Department of State. “Military Assistance to Israel.” Fact Sheet, 2025.
5. U.S. Energy Information Administration. “World Oil Transit Chokepoints”, 2025.
6. World Bank. “Research and Development Expenditure (% of GDP) – Israel”, 2025.