• A war with global consequences

Origins of the conflict

The immediate origins of the current US–Israel–Iran war lie in a prolonged escalation of military, diplomatic, and nuclear tensions culminating in early this year (2026). After decades of antagonistic relations following Iran’s 1979 revolution, periodic crises intensified in 2025 with a brief but serious exchange of strikes between Israel and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear and missile programmes. Efforts by the US and Iran to negotiate limits on Iran’s nuclear and missile activities faltered in Geneva, Switzerland, leaving both sides unable to reconcile core security demands.

In February 2026, Israel launched a coordinated military offensive — “Operation Lion’s Roar” — against Iranian military and nuclear-related targets. US forces subsequently joined under a broader campaign, “Operation Epic Fury”, targeting Iran’s leadership, defense infrastructure, and strategic assets. The joint strikes, including the reported killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader and senior commanders, triggered immediate Iranian retaliation with missiles and drones, broadening the conflict. This escalation marks a shift from years of indirect proxy confrontations to direct military engagement, rooted in unresolved nuclear disputes, mutual security fears, and a breakdown of diplomatic avenues.

Geopolitical dimensions

The escalating confrontation must be analysed not merely as a security dispute but as a revealing episode in the transformation of global power. What appears publicly as a conflict over nuclear capability, deterrence, or regional stability is, in structural terms, part of a broader contest over legitimacy, hierarchy, and the architecture of the international order. This confrontation exposes three interrelated crises: the erosion of multilateral credibility, the intensification of East–West rivalry, and the widening moral and political divide between the Global North and the Global South.

History demonstrates that major conflicts rarely originate from a single decision or individual. The World Wars of the 20th Century emerged from economic humiliation, militarised nationalism, institutional weakness, and the normalisation of antagonistic narratives. The rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany accelerated global catastrophe, but structural grievances, economic depression, and the failures of collective security enabled his ascent. The lesson is not that contemporary politics mirrors the 1930s exactly, but that unchecked rivalry, ideological absolutism, and weakened diplomatic institutions create conditions in which escalation becomes increasingly probable. When global governance loses legitimacy, conflict ceases to be exceptional and instead becomes normalised.

Multipolar power shifts

In the contemporary moment, the US–Iran conflict intersects with a shifting global balance of power. The post–Cold War era was defined by US predominance — militarily, financially, and institutionally. However, the rise of China, Russia’s strategic assertiveness, and India’s expanding influence signal a transition toward multipolarity. Many African, Asian, and Latin American States are diversifying alliances and seeking alternatives to Western-centred financial and political frameworks.

Within this context, US interventionist policies are often interpreted not solely as defensive measures but as attempts to preserve a waning hegemonic order. Whether this fully captures US strategic intent is secondary; perception in international politics often functions as reality, shaping alignments and alliances across the globe.

Global institutional credibility

A central dimension of the crisis is the credibility deficit facing global institutions. The United Nations (UN), particularly the UN Security Council (SC), was established in 1945 to prevent precisely the kind of escalation now unfolding. Yet, the veto structure embeds the geopolitical hierarchies of the mid-20th Century. When powerful states or their close allies are directly involved, institutional paralysis frequently follows.

This structural limitation has generated widespread frustration in the Global South, where Governments and civil societies question the consistency of international law enforcement. Debates surrounding military operations in Gaza and the diplomatic shielding of Israel have intensified accusations of double standards.

Economic consequences

The economic implications of sustained conflict are severe. The Persian Gulf remains indispensable to global energy supply chains. Even limited escalation produces oil price volatility, currency depreciation in import-dependent economies, and rising food insecurity. Developing nations — many still recovering from pandemic-era disruptions — bear disproportionate burdens when global markets destabilise.

Sanctions regimes, though formally targeted at state actors, often disrupt civilian access to medicine, banking systems, and essential imports. Geopolitical rivalry thus reinforces structural inequalities between wealthy Northern economies and vulnerable Southern states.

Cultural and psychological impacts

Beyond economics, the cultural and psychological dimensions of the war are significant. Continuous exposure to militarised rhetoric, retaliatory threats, and civilian suffering shapes public consciousness. War is no longer confined to battlefields; it permeates digital platforms, news cycles, and social discourse. Diaspora communities face suspicion, securitisation, and identity-based stress.

Nationalist narratives gain traction, portraying geopolitical rivals as civilisational adversaries rather than strategic competitors. 

Environmental and ecological damage

The environmental dimension further complicates the crisis. Military strikes on industrial infrastructure risk releasing toxins into air and water systems. The Persian Gulf’s fragile marine ecosystem faces heightened vulnerability from oil spills or naval militarisation. Wildlife habitats may be permanently damaged, agricultural lands contaminated, and biodiversity reduced. Modern warfare also contributes substantially to global carbon emissions, undermining climate mitigation commitments. 

Crisis of trust and diplomatic breakdown

This confrontation illustrates a broader crisis of trust. Diplomatic relations between Washington, US, and Tehran have been severed for decades, leaving limited channels for sustained engagement. When communication mechanisms collapse, misinterpretation becomes more likely. In a multipolar environment marked by technological competition, economic decoupling, and ideological polarisation, the margin for error narrows dangerously. Escalation may not result from deliberate aggression but from accumulated suspicion.

The conflict reveals contradictions embedded within the international order: the tension between universalist rhetoric and strategic selectivity, between human rights advocacy and geopolitical pragmatism, and between proclaimed multilateralism and unilateral intervention. These contradictions erode trust not only in specific policies but in the normative framework that underpins global governance.

Impacts on the Global South

The Global South’s skepticism reflects historical memory as much as present policy. Colonial legacies, economic dependency structures, and interventionist precedents shape contemporary interpretations of power politics. As emerging powers collaborate more closely, Western dominance faces structural challenges. Yet, multipolarity does not automatically guarantee justice or stability; it may equally produce competitive fragmentation. Institutional reform must accompany power redistribution to prevent long-term instability.

Humanitarian and ecological consequences

The victims of escalating rivalry are not abstract geopolitical actors but ordinary human beings and ecosystems. Civilians endure displacement, economic precarity, and psychological trauma. Children grow up amid instability. Cultural bridges weaken. Environmental damage persists long after political leaders exit the stage. Deterrence and strategic rhetoric often obscure these lived realities, leaving the human and ecological costs underacknowledged.

Toward a sustainable resolution

A sustainable resolution will not emerge from military victory or coercive escalation but from a structurally grounded diplomatic recalibration addressing security, legitimacy, and regional balance. Direct and sustained negotiations between the US and Iran, supported — but not dominated — by multilateral frameworks such as the UN and regional stakeholders, are essential.

Any durable agreement should combine phased de-escalation, reciprocal security guarantees, nuclear transparency mechanisms, and gradual sanctions relief tied to verifiable compliance. Inclusion of regional powers is crucial to construct a Gulf security architecture that reduces zero-sum calculations between Iran and US allies, including Israel. 

Conclusion

The US–Iran conflict is more than a bilateral dispute. In an interconnected world, no conflict remains local. If diplomatic pathways remain blocked, the risk is not merely prolonged regional instability but a deepening fracture in the global system. The ultimate question is whether the international community will adapt, reform institutions, and prioritise human security over geopolitical dominance — or whether escalation and fragmentation will define the 21st-Century international order.

The writer is a Senior Lecturer at and Head of the Kelaniya University’s Mass Communication Department

----------

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication