By Ismail H. Warsame, MSc, PhD Candidate

The US–Israeli war on Iran has now moved beyond the battlefield. Regardless of how many missiles are intercepted, military facilities destroyed, or political statements issued, the conflict has already entered a phase where its strategic consequences are becoming increasingly clear. Wars are not ultimately judged by tactical victories but by their long-term political and geopolitical outcomes. By that measure, this war has fundamentally altered the strategic landscape of the Middle East.
For decades, the United States and Israel sought to establish an uncontested regional order built on military superiority, political intimidation, economic leverage, and strategic alliances with Arab monarchies. Iran was identified as the principal obstacle to this vision. Yet the war has produced consequences that may ultimately undermine the very objectives that justified it.
The first and perhaps most significant outcome is the validation of Iranian deterrence. Iran has demonstrated that it cannot be treated like Iraq, Libya, or Syria. Despite decades of sanctions, isolation, cyber warfare, assassinations, and military threats, Iran has preserved sufficient military capability to impose costs on its adversaries. The mere possibility of Iranian retaliation has forced Washington, Tel Aviv, and their allies to continuously calculate risks before every military move. Deterrence is not about defeating an enemy outright; it is about making aggression costly. By that measure, Iran has already achieved a strategic success.
Second, the conflict has elevated the importance of the Strait of Hormuz as a geopolitical weapon. Nearly one-fifth of global oil shipments pass through this narrow maritime corridor. Every escalation instantly sends shockwaves through energy markets, financial institutions, and global supply chains. Iran’s ability to threaten, disrupt, or control traffic through Hormuz gives Tehran leverage far beyond its economic size. The war has reminded the world that the global economy remains vulnerable to a handful of strategic chokepoints.
Beyond Hormuz lies a broader strategic reality: Iran’s capacity to project power into the Bab el-Mandab Strait and the Red Sea through its alliance with the Houthis. What began as a local Yemeni conflict has evolved into a regional pressure point capable of disrupting one of the world’s most important maritime routes. Western navies have spent billions attempting to secure Red Sea shipping lanes, yet attacks continue to demonstrate the limits of military solutions against decentralized proxy forces. The message is unmistakable: maritime dominance can no longer be taken for granted.
The war has also intensified pressure on the petrodollar system. Since the 1970s, global oil trade has reinforced American financial dominance. However, every major confrontation involving Iran encourages oil producers and emerging powers to seek alternatives. China, Russia, and several Global South countries increasingly explore non-dollar trade arrangements and alternative payment mechanisms. While the petrodollar remains dominant, its aura of permanence has been weakened by the repeated weaponization of sanctions and financial systems.
Another strategic consequence concerns the future of Zionist expansionism and Israeli regional ambitions. For years, Israel pursued normalization agreements and regional integration under the assumption of overwhelming military superiority. The war has challenged that assumption. It has demonstrated that military power alone cannot eliminate resistance movements, erase ideological opposition, or impose a stable regional order. Instead, it has deepened polarization and reinforced anti-Israeli sentiment across much of the Middle East.
Equally important is what the conflict has revealed about American military power. The United States maintains an extensive network of military bases across the Middle East, costing hundreds of billions of dollars over decades. Yet the war raises fundamental questions about the sustainability of this posture. Military installations spread across Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and elsewhere increasingly resemble strategic liabilities rather than instruments of uncontested dominance. Every base becomes a target; every deployment carries escalating political and financial costs. The age of effortless American hegemony in the region appears increasingly unsustainable.
Perhaps the greatest political casualty has been the credibility of the Arab monarchies. Decades of extraordinary oil wealth have produced some of the richest states in the world, yet many have appeared strategically dependent and politically passive during one of the region’s defining confrontations. Their vast military expenditures have not translated into strategic autonomy. Their dependence on external security guarantees has exposed profound vulnerabilities. The contrast between immense wealth and limited geopolitical influence has become increasingly difficult to ignore.
The war has also exposed deeper structural problems: elite corruption, governance deficits, democratic stagnation, and the growing disconnect between rulers and citizens throughout much of the Arab world. While governments issue carefully calibrated diplomatic statements, public opinion across the region often moves in a very different direction. This widening gap represents a long-term source of instability that no amount of military spending can permanently suppress.
Most importantly, the conflict signals the acceleration of a transition toward a multipolar world. The era in which Washington could unilaterally shape Middle Eastern outcomes is fading. Regional powers now possess greater autonomy, global powers increasingly compete for influence, and non-state actors exercise unprecedented strategic relevance. The result is a more fragmented but also more contested regional order.
The ultimate irony of the US–Israeli war on Iran may be that an operation intended to reinforce regional dominance has instead highlighted its limits. Iran remains standing. Maritime chokepoints have become more strategically important. The petrodollar faces growing questions. Arab monarchies appear increasingly vulnerable. American bases look more exposed. Israeli assumptions about regional supremacy have been challenged. And the broader Middle East has moved one step further away from a unipolar order.
History often judges wars not by who fired the most missiles but by who altered the strategic balance. By that measure, the defining legacy of this conflict may not be military destruction but the exposure of a changing Middle East—one in which old certainties are collapsing and new realities are emerging.

———-
Support WAPMEN — the home of fearless, independent journalism and critical analysis that speaks truth to power across Somalia and the wider region.
Tel/WhatsApp: +252 90 703 4081.