Iran, Israel conflict challenges US capacity to secure, defend ally, global trade

Few nations have been so globally dominant as the United States in the post-Second World War era, initially buoyed by vast industrial capacity, unrivalled power projection, and the promise of the Pax Americana or American Peace.

From Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq, Kosovo to Afghanistan, Iraq (again), Libya, and Syria, alongside longstanding commitments to global security across Asia and Europe, the US readily embraced its position as the de facto “world policeman”.

For the most part, the world was happy to allow the US to unilaterally fulfil this role, particularly as the global reach of the US allowed it to keep vital shipments of oil and other liquid energy out of the Middle East flowing and the global maritime trade corridors free from molestation.

Off the back of this “American sacrifice”, as it has been described by US-based strategic policy analyst and author Peter Zeihan, much of the developing and developed world alike enjoyed reliable access to energy at reasonable prices and global markets with voracious appetites.

In doing so, this paved the way for the period of economic growth and prosperity in the aftermath of the Cold War that transformed much of the world and effectively laid the foundations for a truly monumental shift in the global balance of power.

However, the America of today is a far cry from the heights of its post-Second World War glory – at home, the nation is politically polarised, and abroad, the “indispensable nation” is now beset by a series of rival nations each with their own unique designs and ambitions for the future of the global order.

Across the Indo-Pacific, China and India lead the pack, with other established and emerging powers including Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, and a myriad of other smaller, yet equally important, emerging nations.

VIEW ALL

In the Middle East, often ancient ethnic and religious tensions have been reignited following Hamas’ devastating attack on Israel in early-October, serving to set back the “normalisation” of relations between Israel and much of the Muslim world.

This renewed conflict in the Holy Land has also served to stoke the embers of regional competition and enflame the already “cold” rivalry between Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Iran, serving to once again draw the United States into a potential devastating regional conflict.

Highlighting the reinvigorated concerns about the new prospects of conflict in the Middle East, in particular, and the limitations of the United States to maintain control over the flow of global energy supplies is The Wall Street Journal’s Michael Gordon and Alexander Ward in a piece titled US faces challenges as potential Iran attack on Israel nears.

Trouble is brewing

There was only one way Israel’s successful strikes against Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and subsequent strikes in Syria against Hezbollah leader Fuad Shukr was going to go, and that was a massive escalation in the already deteriorating geopolitical and strategic environment and renewed the possibility of conflict erupting in the Middle East.

Already stretched by its global responsibilities, the United States has called for calm while also dispatching a host of naval and other defence assets as a deterrent against a potential Iranian counterstrike against Israel, yet it is presenting major challenges for the US.

Gordon and Ward detailed these challenges saying, “The Biden administration is working to blunt a potential Iranian attack on Israel, but it faces an array of fresh challenges as it seeks to replicate the success it had in April when a multinational coalition helped Israel intercept a barrage of Iranian missiles and drones. US officials said they have started seeing Iran moving missile launchers and conducting military drills, which could indicate an attack in the coming days. Iran has signalled it plans to retaliate against Israel for the killing of a senior Hamas leader in Tehran.”

But the potential of an Iranian response is just the tip of the iceberg, with US officials concerned a coordinated response between Iranian, Hamas, and Hezbollah forces against Israel is increasingly likely, thus complicating American decisionmakers thinking and response.

The pair stated, “The US is now confronted with defending Israel from yet another Iranian attack if deterrence fails, while also pursuing its efforts to bring back stability to the region. The prospect of a conflagration could derail President Joe Biden’s already faltering push for a Gaza ceasefire, which has become central to his Middle East diplomacy and foreign-policy legacy.”

Nevertheless, the US has deployed considerable capability to the region in an effort to deter further violence and in an effort to prevent a further escalation in the region.

Gordon and Ward detailed this effort, saying, “The administration is trying to deter and if necessary prepare for an escalation nonetheless, sending a squadron of F-22 jet fighters and an aircraft carrier strike group to the region. General Erik Kurilla, the head of US Central Command, is now in Israel, just as he was in April during the last confrontation. The US has also stood up a joint team with the Israelis in Tel Aviv to coordinate missile defence, as it did in April.”

But one has to ask, at what cost to broader US global presence and capability and capacity to defend and maintain the global order?

Final thoughts

Increasingly, Australians are going to be asked to accept a number of uncomfortable realities in the coming years. First and foremost, we will 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.

Second, both the Australian public and our policymakers will have to accept that without a period of considered effort, investment and reform, or as I like to colloquially refer to it, our Rocky montage moment, current and future generations of Australians will be increasingly impoverished, living in a nation pushed around by the region’s now rising powers.

Recognising this array of challenges and opportunities, both the Australian public and its policymakers need to look beyond the myopic lens of short-termism that has traditionally dominated our diplomatic, strategic, and economic policy making since Federation.

The most important questions now become, when will we see a more detailed analysis and response to the challenges and opportunities facing Australia and when will we see both a narrative and strategy that better helps industry and the Australian public understand the challenges faced and opportunities we have presented before us?

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 a 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..