Are we going to be witnessing a reversal of geopolitical structure in West Asia where the US will lose all its military and political dominance?
USA, after going through the transition from monopoly capitalism to Finance-Capital internationalized itself and dominated the world financial market and world trading exchanges which made the US dollar the dominant currency. Finance Capital inevitably deindustrialized its own base country, so it needed to control finance, trade, and expand to control the "energy" sources and/or energy trading, including the energy routes and ports. US Finance Capital has been working on achieving world energy control for decades.
US’s first aim was to
expand, fragment Russia and gain control over Russia's oil and LNG.
Ukraine war was fundamentally provoked, the war forced upon Russia for that
purpose. However, the arrogance and hubris, the fantasies about its
military power divorced from the concrete realities, made Russia stronger both
economically and militarily.
US’s second, directly connected to the former aim was strangling China through the control of energy and forcing China to give concession on the rare earth minerals without which neither the military industry nor tech industry of US could even survive. So, the war against Iran in US case was fundamentally aiming to achieve the control of Iranian oil and Strait of Hurmuz.
What the US illusion, arrogance and hubris prevented them to see
(despite the example of Ukraine) is that
the balance of powers had shifted especially with the development of
technological warfare in where the cheap drones could easily deplete the
multimillion dollar missiles, like less costly drones and missiles can destroy
multi million dollar military machines.
The second and most important
illusion was that neither Russia nor China would help Iran in this
war. The fact is that such a war in close proximity of Russia and China
would give them the chance of testing and recalibrating their new technological
weapons. Russia and China's Assistance
and the limits”
Are Russia and China helping
Iran in this war?
Any war inevitably becomes a
testing ground for the superpowers with military industries and new
technological weapons. No superpower would and could pass up the chance to
test its new technological military means and methods in a war zone. In this
sense, in addition to the fact that the question of Iran can easily and
possibly be turned into an existential question for both, it is an
opportunity for both. Especially for China, Iran is a great field to test its
newly developed military weapons and ammunition in a real war. This is an objective assumption, based on the logical inference which is not
only reasonable but almost unavoidable. If we accept the foundational
assumption, we can deconstruct the scenario to see why the presence of
Russian and Chinese professionals on the ground in Iran is a logical
conclusion.
A war zone provides data that a
training ground or simulation never can: such as data on lethality,
reliability, and effectiveness under the extreme stress of electronic warfare,
jamming, and enemy tactics. They
cannot rely solely on Iranian operators drafting reports on the tests. They
need their own engineers and technicians on-site to recover black boxes from
downed systems, adjust software parameters in real-time, and visually confirm
damage assessments. It is standard practice in military alliances and proxy
conflicts to embed advisors. The term "training" is the publicly
acceptable term for what is often a combined operation. If Russia and/or China
actually supplied Iran with a new generation of electronic jamming pods or
anti-stealth radar systems, these are not "plug-and-play"
commodities. They require calibration, maintenance, and tactical
integration. The most efficient way to ensure the equipment performs well
(and thus provides better test data) is to have the people who built it there
making the necessary adjustments. This is often framed as "technical
support." Having their own professionals as "technical
supporters" on the ground allows them to control the "test
conditions." They can ensure the equipment is used correctly to
generate the specific data they need, rather than being misused by a foreign
army unfamiliar with its nuances.
Thus, it is a logical assumption
that Russian and Chinese personnel are present in Iran. They are likely
operating under the guise of technicians, trainers, and military advisors.
Their role would be to ensure the newly developed weapons are used optimally,
to collect telemetry and combat data, and to prevent the Iranians from misusing
the technology in a way that might compromise its secrets or provide flawed
test results. While this remains an assumption, it aligns perfectly with the
historical behavior of superpowers treating client-state conflicts as
live-fire laboratories. So, in addition to the delivery of air defense and
other technological weapons to Iran, it is highly likely that Russia and China
has its expert personnel on the ground using or supervising the use of them. They
are providing satellite intel, EW, and possibly precision-guidance tech to
Iran.
In addition, both China and
Russia are well aware of the fact that
US control of Iranian oil and Strait of Hurmuz would represent an
existential question for both ; China and Russia. So, it was impossible
for them to remain silent in this war. Both most likely prefer a
“protracted, low-intensity” conflict that bleeds the US. They will continue to help Iran survive.
US's indirect assistance to
Ukraine in its war against Russia is not a secret. War against Iran gave Russia
the opportunity to pay back, have the US taste its own medicine. There
are sufficient evidence that Russia and China helping Iran in this war and they
cannot let Iran to be defeated by US-Israel. Already the precise successful
targeting of Iranian missiles are clear indication of the involvement of
Russia and China in satellite, radar, and intelligence information. These technological
help are much more decisive than "foot on the ground" direct
involvement.
The US military bases and
radar systems in Gulf countries, Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia largely have been destroyed by Iranian missile and drone attacks. Shooting down of the US
aircrafts is another indication of China-Russia assistance to Iran.
All the indications are moving
forward to a Middle East-West Asia without the presence of US (and without an
Israel - at least the way we know) and without US proxy family-states in the
region.
If I am capable of seeing this
ratifications of the war, Russian and Chinese decision makers are aware of
these developments with much deeper knowledge and, although indirectly, they
will do anything in their power to
facilitate this outcome.
For a sophisticated and internally
coherent analysis, drawing on classical geopolitical and Marxist-finance
capital theory, one has to identify
and recognize the real shifts in the balance of power, the
impact of new military technology, especially the drone warfare, and the interdependence
of great-power rivalries.
Early
assessments on US-Israel
1- The US is strategically
overstretched and has become industrially hollow.
2- Cheap drones and precision
missiles have made large, expensive military platforms obsolete.
3- All the indications are
towards the fact that the US cannot simultaneously fight in Ukraine (via
proxies), Israel, Iran, and any other countries.
4- The Gulf monarchies are
fragile and may switch sides, become nonaligned, or ceased to exist. The
future of these family-states have become questionable, especially if they still let
US-Israel use their land and air for the attacks on Iran. Kuwait can easily be
invaded by the Shia militia of Iraq, Iran could invade UAE without any problem,
uprising in these countries seems to be very plausible if these countries still
populated (there is a big chance that Iran can destroy their desalination
plants leaving the population without drinking water forcing them to migrate).
Saudi's oil refineries are within
the reach of Iran and now of Yemen. Such single economy countries like these
family-sates cannot survive without oil.
The US military myth is shattered
US military power is increasingly
“hollow” in the classical Marxist-Leninist sense: finance capital deindustrialized
the productive base, and now the military depends on imported minerals and
components, especially from China. The US rare earth stockpile is indeed
low (estimates vary, but 2–6 months for certain heavy rare earths).
Replenishing missiles, drones, and precision munitions requires a supply
chain that no longer exists domestically. This is a “structural”
constraint, not a tactical one. Russia and China, by contrast, have
maintained and rebuilt their industrial-military complexes.
US has infinite military stock
pile myth
The argument that the US still
has “massive” existing stockpiles” has no
factual basis. The military arsenal depletion is real. The narrative
that even with “the wars in Ukraine and Israel, the US has not yet tapped
its war reserves” for a major conflict is fantasy based similar to the
argument that “Iran cannot force the
US to fire its last missile .” Having massive stock pile may be true on the
non-decisive weapons and ammunitions, but it is not correct on the decisive
weapons and ammunitions like THAAD, Patriot (and radar systems -half a billion
dollar- one of which has been destroyed by a $20,000 drone). US has “large
quantities” of legacy, non-decisive munitions (dumb bombs, older JDAMs,
small-diameter bombs, etc.). But for “high-end, decisive systems” like “THAAD interceptors” (roughly $12–15 million
each, limited production rate of ~50–60 per year), “Patriot PAC-3 MSE” (roughly $4 million each,
production constrained), “SM-3 Block IIA”
(used for ballistic missile defense, ~$12 million, low triple-digit annual
production), “Advanced ground-based
radars” (AN/TPY-2, etc.) – these are “not” easily replaceable;
production lines are slow and expensive.
It is the core logic of the new technological era that a $20,000 drone destroying a half-billion-dollar radar . The cost-exchange ratio has inverted. Defending against cheap mass attacks is economically ruinous, even for the US.
All the US military, CIA, and
other objective experts points to the depletion of decisive ammunition and
machines. What is important for the
"depletion of military arsenal" is not only related to the current war, but for the possible war after that. Iran is
depleting the US arsenal, what the experts describe as to a degree that US
cannot wage another war against a peer power.
The US Navy's Unmatched Power
Projection myth
On the myth that “The US's
true military dominance in the region rests on carrier strike groups and
submarines. These are mobile, redundant, and extremely difficult to destroy.
Iran has no credible capability to sink a US carrier. As long as the US can
project power from the Arabian Sea and Eastern Mediterranean, it retains the
ability to strike Iran, protect shipping, and re-establish bases after a
conflict. “
Under current military
technological era, "US Navy's Unmatched Power Projection" becomes
mostly meaningless; they are sitting ducks on the water against the long
range anti-ship missiles, unmanned sea drones.
Long-range anti-ship ballistic
missiles, hypersonic weapons, and loitering sea drones have radically
degraded the survivability of large surface vessels in a near-peer or even
mid-tier conflict. In a “closed sea” like the Persian Gulf or the Strait of
Hormuz, a carrier group is a vulnerable target. That’s why the US has
adapted (slowly) by pushing carriers further out of the reaching distances and
relying on stand-off strike, submarines, and unmanned systems. Submarines
remain extremely difficult to detect and kill, and they carry Tomahawks and
other land-attack missiles. So the US can still “project power” – but not
“persistent, close-in air supremacy” over Iran’s coast without accepting
high risk: the era of “carrier as invincible fortress” is over.
Military dominance is not a
literal term; it involves having a strong industry, logistics and as
Engels noted " a strong economy" without which
"dominance" becomes a "rhetoric" fantasy. The economy
of US is in crises and marching towards depression. Its military arsenal is
being depleted rapidly. Last time I had read its rare earth mineral stock
was for two months. The depletion of military arsenal requires replenishing
it, how will US military industry will produce and replenish its military
arsenal without having the necessary material to produce? Those who have
the necessary material to produce an end product will always have the
upper hand than those who do not.
Petro dollar dominance
The fantasy based argument that
"The resilience of the petrodollar system even without US military
boots on the ground – Saudi and UAE can still sell oil for dollars " is
divorced from the current realities and possible developments that may well
follow; like Saudi and others cannot sell any oil if its oil refineries are
destroyed, Strait of Hurmuz and Red sea is under the control of Iran and Yemen.
The strait of Hurmuz is not "closed", it is open to those who pays in
Yuan (other than US-Israel and their allies). Petro Dollar will have some
control but will lose its dominance- actually losing its dominance since
all the large oil trades between Russia, India, China (and some others) are
NOT in US dollars.
People treat "selling oil
for dollars" as a voluntary choice by Gulf states. They ignore the plausibility, in some current concrete
cases that if they cannot “physically
export” oil (due to destroyed infrastructure or blocked straits), the choice is
moot. They also underestimated the strategic logic that Iran would not just close the Strait – it
would “selectively open it” to yuan-paying customers. That creates a de
facto yuan oil market, accelerating dollar displacement.
The resilience of petrodollar proceeds
from the assumption that “ Gulf oil continues to flow and is priced in dollars”.
They have never consider the scenarios of “destroyed refineries” and
“Iran/Yemen control of the Strait of Hormuz and Red Sea” with passage only for
those paying in yuan. These concrete scenarios fundamentally break the
petrodollar system.
Conclusion
It is a dynamic world and thus, wars
can have unpredictable outcomes. A structural analysis must
be grounded in material realities. The unpredictability of war, the role of
contingent events, and the agency of multiple actors make precise prediction
impossible. That is why to speak of a timeline and transition mechanisms
such as how exactly the US will lose bases, how the Gulf states switch sides
or become neutral, what will trigger the
collapse of the petrodollar " would be more subjective than objective for
now. However, US losing the military bases is already a concrete fact
as far as the Gulf family-states are concerned, may be bases in Iraq to some
degree (at least the numerous destroyed bases are in a situation that is not
usable for years to come). What is left as significant is the bases in Saudi
Arabia and Jordan. For the Gulf states "switching sides" may be more
like "being neutral" and not letting the US to use its land or they
would cease to exist with the destruction of desalination plants.
"Switching sides" for
the Gulf family-States is less about active alignment with
Iran/Russia/China and more about “neutrality born of necessity” ; Gulf
states refusing the US use of their territory to avoid destruction of their
desalination plants or oil infrastructure. That is a more plausible and accurate forecast than a subjective and
abstract ideological framing. A strong structural forecast does not need to pretend knowledge of “when” or “exactly
how” each domino will fall. The direction of travel is clear; the speed
and specific sequence are secondary.
The US is on a trajectory to lose
its military and political dominance in West Asia, with proxy regimes either
collapsing, becoming neutral or switching sides – is not only plausible but
increasingly probable. The depletion of decisive munitions to wage the war
against Iran is the material mechanism driving that outcome.
The US cannot currently fight a
full-scale war with Iran “and” maintain its required readiness for a
potential conflict with China. The depletion of THAAD, Patriot, and SM-3
inventories would leave the US exposed in other theaters. This is not speculation.
The US officials have warned that the defense industrial base is not
capable of a high-intensity, multi-theater war.
The US is facing a “structural”
– not just tactical – erosion of its military dominance in West Asia is
supported by the very evidences we are currently witnessing. The nuances are related to A) “Political
thresholds matter” in which the US may choose to “not” fully commit to
defending Israel or Gulf states if the cost exceeds its ability to deter
China. B) “The "peer war" constraint in where ”the US will
preserve its most advanced munitions (e.g., hypersonic missile defenses,
stealth aircraft, submarine-launched munitions) for a potential China conflict.
That means the defense of West Asia will be “second-tier” – and that
will be perceived by Iran, Russia, and China as weakness.
The "all or nothing"
collapse forecasts (no US, no Israel, no family-states) is a maximalist
scenario. However, it “could” happen if the US blunders into a
full-scale ground war with Iran and loses catastrophically. Looking at
the developments, reading between the lines
of official statements changing daily, even hourly, it seems that the US
is avoiding that. That may indicate that US is slowly retrenching, as it did from
Afghanistan. That would be a loss of
dominance, yes, but not an apocalyptic reversal.
The financial pillar of US
hegemony (petrodollar) will be undermined if physical oil supply chains
are disrupted or controlled by Iran-allied forces. The US cannot maintain
dollar dominance without controlling either the oil or the military protection
of the Gulf states. If both are lost, the transition away from the
dollar accelerates. Under current conditions the petrodollar would lose its
dominance, not just erode. The existing large oil trades between Russia, India,
and China “already” bypass the dollar (using yuan, ruble, or barter). This
is not a future possibility – it is current reality.
The “direction” of change is the
US losing unipolar dominance, and the era of unchallenged US power in
West Asia is ending.
This is not a “long-term inevitable” outcome anymore: the
current direction is proceeding towards the end of US military hegemony in West Asia,
and the likely collapse of the current Israeli and Gulf monarchical order as
we know it. US is losing influence,
then gradually the bases, then eventually face a choice: escalate to a catastrophic
war (which it would likely lose industrially) or negotiate a managed exit. The
managed exit is more probable. And in that scenario, Israel survives as a
nuclear fortress, not as a regional hegemon. The Gulf states become neutral,
not destroyed.
Erdogan A
April 1, 2026
.jpg)