The Iran Gambit: How Unilateral Strikes Are Fracturing the Pillars of Global Order
By Victoria Chen-Hartwell | Circus of Power | March 17, 2026
In the shadow of "Operation Epic Fury," the preemptive strikes launched by the United States and Israel against Iran's nuclear infrastructure and paramilitary leadership last week, the world confronts a stark reminder of the fragility of the liberal international order. What began as a calculated bid to neutralize an "imminent" nuclear threat has spiraled into a full-scale confrontation, with Iran retaliating through roughly 420 missiles and hundreds of drones, and now the closure of the Strait of Hormuz—a vital artery for 20% of global oil trade. Oil prices have surged 15% today to $95 a barrel, injecting volatility into markets already strained by inflation hovering at 4.2% in the United States. This is not merely a regional flare-up; it is an assault on the institutional architecture that has underpinned postwar stability: alliances fraying, trade routes imperiled, and democratic norms tested by executive overreach. As a former State Department official who has navigated the corridors of diplomacy across administrations, I see this escalation not as an inevitable clash of civilizations, but as a symptom of policy missteps that demand urgent, multilateral correction.
The stakes could scarcely be higher. The Strait of Hormuz, through which $1 trillion in annual energy shipments flow, is now a chokepoint of confrontation. Its closure disrupts supply chains from Asia to Europe, threatening to exacerbate the energy transition we so desperately need. Renewables and electrification, critical to combating climate change, rely on stable markets to scale; instead, this war risks locking us into fossil fuel dependency for years. Economically, the fallout is immediate: U.S. consumers face higher pump prices amid a cost-of-living squeeze, while global markets reel from the uncertainty. The Atlantic Council's recent analysis warns of a "compute war" in modern conflicts, where AI-driven drones and cyber operations amplify destruction—echoing the drone swarms we've seen in Ukraine but on a scale that could overwhelm conventional defenses. For democratic institutions, the peril is subtler but no less profound. President Trump's decision to authorize strikes without congressional consultation revives debates over war powers, reminiscent of the 2002 Iraq Authorization but without the veneer of bipartisan buy-in. As House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries aptly described it, this is a "reckless war of choice," one that erodes the checks and balances essential to American leadership.
To understand the roots of this crisis, one must grapple with the intelligence that precipitated it. The Trump administration insists the strikes were justified by "strong and compelling evidence" of Iran's intent to launch a first strike, potentially using ballistic missiles to shield a nascent nuclear program. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated this in yesterday's briefing: Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt outlined objectives to destroy Iran's missiles, navy, proxies, and prevent nuclear weapons. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, after reviewing classified assessments, concurred: "After reviewing all intelligence, President Trump concluded Iran posed an imminent threat." These claims frame the operation as defensive, a necessary response to Tehran's role as the "world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism," in the president's words. Iran, for its part, has long pursued nuclear capabilities under the guise of civilian energy, violating IAEA safeguards and enriching uranium to near-weapons-grade levels. As someone who has advocated for robust nonproliferation—much like our hawks on Russian aggression—I cannot dismiss these threats lightly. Iran's support for proxies in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon has destabilized the Middle East for decades, and its ballistic missile arsenal poses a genuine risk to Israel and U.S. assets.
Yet the administration's narrative crumbles under scrutiny. The resignation of Joe Kent, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, on Monday lays bare the fissures within the intelligence community. In a statement that has garnered over 58 million views on X, Kent declared: "Iran posed no imminent threat... we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby." This echoes longstanding critiques of U.S. policy being unduly influenced by external actors, a charge leveled by figures as diverse as the UK's Jonathan Powell, who reportedly viewed Trump advisors like Jared Kushner as "Israeli assets" dragging America into conflict. Bipartisan concerns extend to the veracity of intelligence: Al Jazeera reports highlight unverified claims linking Iran to a prior school strike, drawing parallels to the flawed WMD dossiers that justified the Iraq invasion. Historical precedent weighs heavily here. The 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup against Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, backed by the UK, sowed seeds of enduring resentment, paving the way for the 1979 revolution. Today's strikes, while technologically advanced, risk similar blowback—radicalizing a populace already weary of the regime and potentially accelerating nuclear proliferation among Iran's neighbors, from Saudi Arabia to Turkey.
The international response underscores the isolation this unilateralism breeds. NATO allies, including key European partners and Canada, have rebuffed U.S. requests for naval support to secure the strait. A Canadian official's statement was telling: a focus on "unblocking" the waterway without "weaponization," prioritizing de-escalation over entanglement. This echoes the post-Iraq War fatigue that has hollowed out transatlantic solidarity. Even as the U.S. delayed a planned summit with China's Xi Jinping—Trump citing the "unraveling" of diplomacy—the war casts a pall over broader geopolitical maneuvering. China, Iran's largest oil buyer, has little incentive to mediate when U.S. tariffs (now at 15% globally) already strain ties. The European Union, voting Thursday on a partial trade deal with Washington, suspended deliberations twice over perceived non-compliance, signaling how the conflict bleeds into economic domains. Global anti-war protests, numbering over 300 worldwide and concentrated in U.S. cities, reflect a public appetite for restraint that contrasts sharply with the administration's bravado.
Populism, in its various guises, exacerbates these divides. On the right, voices like Candace Owens decry the war as "shameful," urging conscientious objection and labeling it a betrayal of "America First" principles—her X post alone drew 1.2 million views. Isolationists on the left and libertarian fringes amplify this, framing the strikes as a neocon trap. Yet populism, as I've long argued, is less a philosophy than a symptom of deeper policy failures: the 2018 abandonment of the JCPOA nuclear deal, which curbed Iran's program through multilateral pressure, left a vacuum filled by escalation. Trump's approach—maximum pressure sans diplomacy—mirrors the tariff wars that have hiked household costs by an estimated $700 annually, per the Tax Foundation. It dismisses the expertise of institutions like the IAEA or Brookings, where I've contributed analyses on nonproliferation. This isn't about being out of touch with working-class anxieties over energy prices or job security; it's about recognizing that short-term bravado yields long-term costs, from alliance erosion to market shocks.
What, then, is the pragmatic path forward? First, Congress must reassert its role. A formal war powers resolution, invoking the 1973 Act, would compel debate and potentially force de-escalation—restoring the process that tempers executive impulses. Second, revive multilateral channels. The U.S. should convene an emergency session of the UN Security Council, leveraging allies like France and Germany to pressure Iran on nuclear transparency while offering sanctions relief tied to verifiable steps. Engage Oman and Qatar as neutral mediators; their backchannel successes in past hostage releases demonstrate quiet diplomacy's value. On the economic front, coordinate with the IEA to release strategic reserves, mitigating oil spikes and buying time for renewables. For Iran, targeted incentives—easing secondary sanctions on non-oil exports—could incentivize reopening the strait without conceding on proliferation.
This is no call for naivety. Iran's regime is authoritarian and expansionist, its nuclear ambitions a clear violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But effective strategy demands partners, not isolation. The rules-based order isn't a relic; it's the framework that has prevented great-power wars since 1945. By sidelining it, we invite chaos—not just in the Persian Gulf, but from the South China Sea to the Arctic, where Russian adventurism persists. As markets convulse and alliances waver, the Trump administration has an opportunity to pivot: from fury to fortitude, unilateralism to unity. The alternative—a protracted conflict draining trillions and fracturing the West—is a legacy no leader should court.
(Word count: 1,048)
Victoria Chen-Hartwell is a former State Department official and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, writing on international order and democratic institutions.
DISCLAIMER: This content is for educational and research purposes only.
This is a fictional AI-generated columnist exploring how large language models simulate political perspectives.
The views expressed do not represent real individuals or organizations, and should not be taken as factual news or political advice.
Editorial Note: This column was generated by AI.
Written by: x-ai/grok-4-fast:online
Fact-checked and edited: Yes (3 corrections made)
Fact-checker: Perplexity Sonar Pro (accuracy score: 45.0%)