分类： world

The phrase “this is not our war” has become a major source of friction within the Trump White House, after dozens of European leaders invoked it to explain their refusal to deploy military forces alongside the U.S. and Israel in their ongoing attacks on Iran. This public rift has thrown the future of the post-WWII transatlantic alliance into renewed uncertainty, even as the ripple effects of the Iran conflict extend far beyond the Middle East to reshape global security and economic assumptions. While the war itself remains unresolved, following the breakdown of April 11 negotiations hosted in Islamabad, early trends indicate that five major long-term global shifts are already taking shape, affecting every region from the Indo-Pacific to the Persian Gulf.

Financial markets have so far reacted with muted volatility to the conflict, as investors hold out hope for a rapid end to hostilities. This bet aligns with the reality that the dramatic disruptions of open war can fade as quickly as they emerge once active combat ceases. Still, analysts have identified clear emerging themes that will outlast any near-term ceasefire, starting with the greatest long-term risk: accelerated nuclear proliferation across the globe.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has openly argued that his country’s decades-long investment in nuclear weapons, begun by his father and grandfather, has insulated Pyongyang from the same type of attack Iran is now facing. Many experts agree that this example is not lost on Iran’s ruling regime, which is now widely believed to regret moving more slowly toward a nuclear weapons program. While some observers argue the war could deter proliferation by highlighting the risk of American intervention for nuclear aspirants, this logic falls apart for states that can leverage great power protection, like North Korea’s close relationship with China that makes a large-scale U.S. attack too risky to contemplate.

In the Indo-Pacific, this new calculus has already pushed Japanese officials into open, unprecedented discussions about abandoning the country’s long-held nuclear taboo. These talks stem from two overlapping fears: that South Korea and other regional states could move quickly to develop their own nuclear arsenals, and that the U.S.-promised “extended deterrence” nuclear umbrella can no longer be counted on to protect regional allies. That doubt around American deterrence forms the second major shift laid bare by the Iran conflict.

The war has put U.S. military power on full display, but it has also revealed alarming vulnerabilities. In a conflict against an already heavily weakened Iran, which had sustained significant damage from Israeli and American strikes in June of last year, the U.S. military rapidly depleted a large share of its stockpiles of advanced precision weapons and cutting-edge missile defense systems. This has raised urgent questions across the Indo-Pacific: if the U.S. can exhaust its stockpiles in weeks of fighting a weaker adversary, how would it fare in a prolonged conflict against a far stronger peer competitor like China?

Compounding these concerns is the fact that the Iran war has forced the U.S. to reallocate critical military assets—including warships, entire Marine regiments, and layered missile defense systems—from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East. While the immediate capability gaps created by this shift are not the primary worry, regional strategists cannot discount the risk that China or North Korea could choose to exploit this opening, even if the probability remains low. The far bigger concern is that despite an annual defense budget approaching $1 trillion, the U.S. military has already become severely overstretched after just a short conflict in Iran. This confirms long-held warnings about U.S. defense production capacity constraints, and suggests that current spending prioritizes fixed overhead costs like global basing over the flexible assets and stockpiles needed for modern conflict.

The third key takeaway from the war is a global reevaluation of air and missile defense doctrine. The Gulf monarchies—the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia—have faced repeated barrages of Iranian missiles and drones, and their existing defense systems have failed to stop these attacks effectively. Part of this failure stems from the global shortage of advanced, costly interceptors for U.S.-made Patriot and THAAD systems, a supply crunch that was first exposed by the war in Ukraine. Another factor is that most countries had not adapted their defense strategies to counter the swarms of low-cost drones that have become a staple of modern warfare, until the Iran conflict forced a reckoning. As a result, demand for the type of low-cost, mass-deployed anti-drone defenses Ukraine has honed is set to surge across the globe, not just in the Middle East.

Fourth, the conflict has underscored the urgent need for diversified energy supply chains and expanded strategic stockpiles of critical commodities. For years, analysts have warned that global trade chokepoints could become tools of leverage during open conflict, but the U.S. largely downplayed or even ignored the strategic risk of the Strait of Hormuz, despite the fact that roughly 20% of the world’s annual oil supply passes through the narrow waterway shared by Iran and Oman. After the collapse of the Islamabad talks, the world now faces a high-stakes game of brinkmanship between Trump and Iran over control of the strait. Trump’s recent declaration that U.S. warships will blockade the strait to block Iran from levying transit tolls is a direct challenge to Tehran, a bold gambit that carries a major risk of reigniting full-scale hostilities.

Beyond the immediate crisis, the Hormuz standoff makes clear that nations need to diversify trade routes and build up larger strategic reserves to reduce the leverage chokepoints can give to adversarial powers. For Taiwan, this lesson hits particularly close to home: the island’s still-small strategic energy and commodity stockpiles leave it extremely vulnerable to a potential Chinese blockade.

The fifth and final emerging shift centers on the future of American global alliances. The Iran war has laid bare Trump’s extreme sensitivity to any perceived lack of support from U.S. allies, even as he spent much of the past year publicly insulting and alienating those same partners. Already, the rift over European refusal to join the war has increased the odds that Trump could withdraw the U.S. from NATO in a fit of pique. While the Indo-Pacific alliances have not yet faced the same existential risk, the conflict confirms that U.S. foreign policy is now heavily concentrated in the hands of a single individual: the president. Though Trump is scheduled to leave office in less than three years under current constitutional rules, he has already made dozens of deeply personal, unilateral decisions that will reshape global order in that time, and no country can insulate itself from the consequences of his actions.

This article is an updated version of an original piece published by Mainichi, appearing in Bill Emmott’s Substack column Global View.

Tensions have flared again in the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz just days after a fragile ceasefire between Iran and the United States went into effect, with Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy issuing a stark public warning that any miscalculated move by hostile forces in the waterway will be met with deadly consequences.

The warning was published Saturday on the social media platform X, where the IRGC Navy also shared drone-collected surveillance footage purporting to show the full operational landscape of the strait. The branch emphasized that every movement—whether active or stationary—of foreign vessels within the strategic waterway is under constant, full surveillance by Iran’s armed forces. “Any erroneous maneuver will trap the enemy in deadly whirlpools in the strait,” the post read.

The escalation of rhetoric follows conflicting accounts of a U.S. naval operation in the region one day prior. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) announced Saturday that two American warships had completed a transit through the Strait of Hormuz and launched mine-clearing operations in the Persian Gulf. Iran’s top military body, Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, immediately pushed back against the claim, issuing a strong denial that any American vessels had entered the strait’s territorial waters.

In an exclusive Sunday report, Iran’s state-owned Press TV framed the U.S. military’s attempted deployment of the two destroyers—identified as the USS Michael Murphy and USS Frank E. Peterson—as a botched propaganda exercise timed to coincide with newly resumed Tehran-Washington negotiations in Islamabad. Press TV reported that Iranian naval forces forced the two American destroyers to retreat before they could reach the strait.

Expanding on its stance Sunday, the IRGC released an official statement clarifying that any foreign military vessel seeking to approach the Strait of Hormuz under any pretext will be classified as a violation of the ongoing ceasefire and will face harsh, decisive retaliation.

The current standoff comes against a backdrop of sharply escalated regional conflict that began in late February 2026, when Israel and the United States launched joint airstrikes targeting Tehran and multiple other Iranian cities. The strikes killed Iran’s then-Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, alongside a number of senior Iranian military commanders and civilian bystanders. In response, Iran launched a massive retaliatory campaign of missile and drone attacks targeting both Israel and U.S. military assets across the Middle East, and moved to tighten its control over the Strait of Hormuz by banning passage for all vessels owned or affiliated with Israel and the United States.

A two-week ceasefire between Iran and the United States entered into force on Wednesday, paving the way for extended bilateral negotiations between the two delegations in the Pakistani capital. As of Sunday, those talks had not resulted in any breakthrough agreement, leaving the fragile truce at growing risk of collapse amid the latest naval dispute.

WASHINGTON – U.S. President Donald Trump has announced a sweeping new order directing the United States Navy to enact an immediate full blockade of all vessels attempting to transit in or out of the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz. The major policy shift was made public via a post on his Truth Social platform on Sunday, confirming that the restrictive maritime measure would go into effect without delay.

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway linking the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman, is one of the world’s most vital chokepoints for global energy trade. Roughly 20% of the world’s daily oil supplies and a substantial share of global liquefied natural gas shipments pass through the strait, making any disruption to maritime traffic there capable of sending shockwaves through international energy markets and global supply chains. Trump’s announcement of a full blockade marks an unprecedented escalation of maritime tensions in the already volatile Middle East region, with broad implications for global energy security and international diplomatic relations.

After 21 hours of intensive, overnight diplomatic negotiations in Islamabad, Pakistan, the highest-level direct talks between the United States and Iran in more than a decade have concluded without a breakthrough, leaving a fragile two-week ceasefire in their six-week conflict on the brink of collapse. The war, which has already claimed thousands of lives, has roiled global energy markets and sent international oil prices soaring, casting deep uncertainty over regional stability.

Hosted by Pakistani mediators, the April 12 talks marked the most senior official engagement between Washington and Tehran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, raising cautious hopes across the international community for de-escalation. The conflict erupted in late February after the U.S. and its closest Middle East ally Israel launched pre-emptive military strikes against Iran during an ongoing round of nuclear negotiations that included former U.S. president Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and then-senior advisor Jared Kushner. Iran responded with widespread retaliatory action, dragging the entire Middle East into open conflict.

Disagreements over core sticking points derailed any path to a final agreement, according to officials and media reports from both sides. Iran’s semi-official Tasnim News Agency blamed what it described as “excessive American demands” for the collapsed talks, while other Iranian outlets noted that while incremental progress was made on secondary issues, two major flashpoints—the future of the strategic Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear program—proved impossible to reconcile. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei framed the negotiations as having taken place against a backdrop of deep long-standing distrust between the two nations, adding that a comprehensive deal was never a realistic outcome for a single round of talks. Still, he emphasized that diplomatic channels would remain open, noting that “Diplomacy never ends.”

JD Vance, U.S. Vice President and leader of the American delegation, told reporters that Iran had rejected Washington’s “final and best offer” during the discussions. “The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement, and I think that’s bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad for the U.S,” Vance said, offering no clarity on how the U.S. would act once the 14-day Pakistan-brokered ceasefire expires. Iran’s delegation was led by Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, a composition that analysts had previously viewed as a clear signal of Tehran’s seriousness about reaching a negotiated settlement. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a leading expert on US-Iran relations, noted ahead of the talks that the size and seniority of the Iranian delegation “signal both Tehran’s sincerity in these negotiations and its clear expectations and confidence.”

Pakistani mediators, who spearheaded the efforts to bring the two adversaries to the table, have publicly urged both sides to extend the ceasefire and continue negotiating. “We hope that the two sides continue with a positive spirit to achieve durable peace and prosperity for the entire region and beyond,” Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said. A senior Pakistani source involved in the negotiations told Reuters that the talks saw sharp shifts in tone, with tensions rising and falling repeatedly across the marathon overnight session that began Saturday.

Going into the negotiations, unconfirmed reports emerged that the U.S. had agreed to unfreeze billions of dollars in Iranian assets held in Qatar and other foreign banks, a claim a senior U.S. official quickly denied. Tehran has laid out clear non-negotiable demands in the talks: full sovereign control over the Strait of Hormuz, war reparations for American and Israeli strikes, and a region-wide ceasefire that includes an end to Israeli military operations in Lebanon. Israel has refused to include the Lebanon conflict in any truce with Iran, and new Israeli strikes on southern Lebanon on Saturday and Sunday killed 18 people, pushing the total death toll from Israel’s campaign in the country past 2,000 since the outbreak of the wider war.

Control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s daily seaborne oil trade passed before the conflict, has emerged as Iran’s most powerful strategic leverage in the negotiations. Since the war began, Iran has effectively restricted access to the waterway, with only 12 vessels recorded passing through since the ceasefire took effect, compared to more than 100 per day pre-war. Tensions over the strategic chokepoint flared even during the talks: the U.S. military announced that two American destroyers had transited the strait ahead of planned mine-clearing operations, marking the first U.S. military passage since the war began. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Naval Force quickly rejected the U.S. claim and issued a stark warning. “Any attempt by military vessels to cross the Strait of Hormuz will be confronted firmly and decisively,” the command said in a statement.