A whimper or a bang: Tehran’s next move will determine how our cushy world order dies

War, conflict, and chaos are fundamentally part of life in the Middle East and while recent developments sadly aren’t anything new, in an already fraying world order, the next few weeks have the capacity to rewrite history in a dramatic manner.

This latest bout of instability builds on the mounting regional and global tensions in the aftermath of the Hamas-led attack on Israel on 7 October and the ensuing response by Israel, which has seen the hostilities spill over into the wide Middle East, putting the world’s maritime trade at risk and raising the potential of globally catastrophic conflict in the region.

Israel’s successful assassination of Hamas’ political leader, Ismail Haniyehi, in Tehran, followed by unconfirmed reports of a successful air strike assassination of Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, the Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Forces, has only served to amplify tensions and the potential for further conflict.

It goes without saying, based on the precedent currently being witnessed with increased Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the waters of the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Strait of Hormuz, and around the Horn of Africa, that any potential conflict that stems out of this latest round of attacks will not be solely confined to the Middle East.

What makes this situation more dangerous is the simple fact that Iran’s leadership cannot afford to ignore this latest “provocation”, particularly given the successful penetration of Tehran’s air defence network and the assassination of a high-ranking Iranian official, meaning that the next move is very much firmly in Iran’s hands.

Further complicating matters is the potential involvement of the United States in any regional conflict that has the potential to already overstretch the limited capacity of the United States military, at a time when the world order it built in the aftermath of the Second World War is already stretched to the limit.

A troubling sign of the times

VIEW ALL

By now, it is no secret, at least to most of the national security, international relations, and public policy community, that the unipolar, post-Cold War world so completely dominated by the US no longer exists.

While there are some corners of the public and political communities that refuse to accept this uncomfortable reality, particularly in Australia, where large portions of both our political leaders and the public seem to live in a state of arrested development when it comes to the reality and implications of this new multipolar world, even large portions of the American community are beginning to accept the limitations on their power.

This was first brought to the fore following comments made by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on 22 December 2022, in which he highlighted concerns about the capacity of the US to directly deter and engage a competing great power: “When it comes to Russia’s war against Ukraine, if we were still in Afghanistan, it would have, I think, made much more complicated the support that we’ve been able to give and that others have been able to give Ukraine to resist and push back against the Russian aggression.”

America’s involvement across the Middle East throughout the 1990s and into the 21st century proved to be immensely costly not only for the American Treasury coffers but also for the lower and middle classes of the US, which were compounded by a hollowing out of the once-mighty US industrial base in favour of cheaper, offshore manufacturing as part of the unrestricted globalisation of industry and trade.

The dualistic combination of these costs has only received some attention in public policy, academic and political circles, with most of the emphasis being placed heavily on the “blood and treasure” costs to the budget bottom line and manpower lost.

Critically, the real “at home” cost to America’s middle class and economic heartland has only served to ferment disillusion with the status quo and, most importantly, America’s role as the global policeman when conditions at home continue to worsen and successive generations of young men, in particular, are decimated by endless conflict.

It only stands to reason then that should the United States be dragged into yet another conflict in the Middle East, such disillusionment with the political establishment will be compounded and figure more strongly in the minds of voters come November.

Meanwhile, for Australia and, indeed, the broader world, the potential implications of direct conflict in the Middle East would serve to be truly devastating, as the risks to global energy supplies with undoubtedly ravage an already ailing global economy struggling with stubborn inflation and supply chain constraints.

Furthermore, the potential for US involvement in the region opens further doors for the potential of Chinese moves to be made on Taiwan, resulting in a token US response as a result of global strain.

As we all watch with bated breath, one can’t help but think that Australia is woefully unprepared for the formal death of the US-led world order, whether it dies with a bang, or a whimper.

Final thoughts

Only by recognising the relative decline of the United States (not a popular opinion to state out loud) and accepting that the United States has limitations, can Australia truly begin to take stock of the challenges of operating in this increasingly multipolar world.

However, it is critical for us to understand that Australia’s security, prosperity, and stability will not be determined by events in Europe nor will they be determined by circumstances in the Middle East, while they may influence circumstance – our national future will not be determined by these areas.

It is important to highlight that in the coming era of multipolarity, Australia will face an increasingly competitive Indo-Pacific. Indeed, separate to the People’s Republic of China, our immediate region is home to some of the world’s largest populations with its fastest growing economies with their own unique designs and economic, political, and strategic ambitions for the region.

Rather, we have to accept that while the world is increasingly becoming “multipolar”, the Indo-Pacific, in particular, is rapidly becoming the most hotly contested region in the world. Underpinned by the emerging economic, political, and strategic might of powers like China, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam, and the established and re-emerging capability of both South Korea and Japan, in particular, is serving to create a hotbed of competition on our doorstep.

As events continue to unfold throughout the region and China continues to throw its economic, political, and strategic weight around, can Australia afford to remain an inconsequential, secondary power, or does it need to embrace a larger, more independent role in an era of increasing great power competition?

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..