LONDON, June 23 (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Washington rebranded its recent Iranian military campaign as “Operation Epic Fury,” yet the moniker now rings hollow. Having just inked a ceasefire with Tehran that leaves every initial strategic goal unmet, the endeavor looks less like a triumphant mission and more like a massive miscalculation.
Despite the obvious embarrassment for the Trump administration and the broader fallout for American interests, this chaotic ending may paradoxically offer a faint glimmer of hope for global stability.
The grueling three-and-a-half-month conflict caused widespread suffering and deepened geopolitical fractures stretching from the Middle East to the capitals of Russia and China. Nevertheless, the failure of the U.S. and Israel to impose their will serves as a blunt reminder that heavy-handed aggression does not guarantee victory. As Europe unexpectedly finds itself holding stronger cards, the stage is set for a potential shift in how global power is distributed.
Post-Conflict Risks
The conflict, which began with a joint U.S.–Israeli strike on February 28, 2026, aimed at leadership targets, significantly altered the international landscape. One primary risk is the possibility that Iran could emerge stronger after surviving a massive assault from the world’s leading superpower. As Washington appears unwilling to resume hostilities, Tehran may find itself with increased leverage to threaten neighbors in the Gulf and Israel.
A second major shift involves the global balance of power tilting in favor of China. Beijing has positioned itself as a reliable partner adhering to international law during a period when Washington’s actions have been perceived as rogue. Increased influence for China presents dangers, as the People’s Republic has already demonstrated a willingness to exert pressure through territorial disputes with neighbors like Taiwan and the Philippines, as well as by using economic coercion against the European Union and Japan.
Third, the war has provided a moderate benefit to Russia. A sharp rise in oil prices, combined with the relaxation of U.S. sanctions against Russian hydrocarbon exports, has temporarily replenished the Kremlin’s financial reserves.
Clipping Wings of Aggression
Despite these clear dangers, the conflict offers unintended silver linings. Both the U.S. and Israeli military and political influence have been noticeably curtailed. President Trump increasingly appears like a spent volcano. The war proved unpopular with the electorate, and current prediction markets indicate that his Republican Party faces the risk of losing its narrow majorities in both houses of Congress during the upcoming November mid-term elections.
Some Republican members of Congress have begun to oppose the president on both domestic and foreign policy grounds. While the administration will likely continue to utilize bellicose rhetoric, the potential for further large-scale aggression seems diminished. Specifically, the threat of an invasion of Greenland, which the president suggested in January, has largely dissipated.
Meanwhile, Israel will face increased difficulty in lashing out against its adversaries without the consistent backing of the United States. Support for Israel has declined across the U.S. political spectrum, a shift fueled by the impacts of the Iran war and the ongoing conflict in Gaza. It remains significantly riskier for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to initiate new military campaigns without his primary ally fully committed to covering his back.
The Israeli prime minister has maintained aggressive language, yet his personal relationship with the U.S. president has soured. Furthermore, internal political pressure is mounting, with opinion polls suggesting he may face defeat in a general election scheduled for no later than October.
European Autonomy
The conflict also presented challenges for Europe, particularly by exposing the continent’s lack of energy security. After moving to reduce reliance on Russian hydrocarbons, Europe’s newfound dependency on Gulf supplies created another point of vulnerability. Furthermore, the U.S. president further strained the NATO alliance in frustration over Europe’s failure to support his military campaign, leading Washington to initiate a review of its troop deployments to the continent.
However, Europe successfully maintained its position against U.S. pressure. The recent Group of Seven summit was characterized by greater harmony than the previous year’s gathering. The major European powers, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, remained united in their approach toward the Iran conflict. This unity stands in sharp contrast to the internal divisions that plagued Europe during the Iraq and Libyan wars earlier this century.
By distancing themselves from the U.S. administration, European powers have gained credibility on the world stage. Developing countries in the “global South” have too often viewed Europe as an extension of U.S. foreign policy. This independence provides a better opportunity to convene an alliance of “middle powers” not entirely beholden to either the United States or China.
Managing Future Geopolitical Realities
The potential severity of the war’s geopolitical risks may not be as extreme as once feared. Washington and Tehran plan to transition their ceasefire into a permanent peace deal. Under this framework, Tehran is expected to receive $300 billion in investment and sanctions relief in exchange for implementing limits on its ability to enrich nuclear material.
“Though the path to any lasting agreement is bound to be rocky, Iran may yet conclude that prosperity and peace is better than conflict,” according to the analytical commentary by Hugo Dixon.
China may also choose not to abuse its increased power by invading Taiwan. While a weakened Washington is currently less likely to provide military assistance to Taipei, the Iran war has highlighted that overwhelming military might does not guarantee victory, particularly when a smaller party can utilize low-cost technology such as drone swarms.
A significant amount of the future landscape depends on the outcome of the war in Ukraine. Recent tactical successes by Kyiv and attacks on critical infrastructure may force Moscow into a stalemate. Although the Iran conflict provided Russia with a short-term financial boost, the Russian economy is under significant strain, and President Vladimir Putin’s public approval ratings have declined.
Last year, the U.S. president attempted to pressure Ukraine into an unfavorable deal with Russia, arguing that President Volodymyr Zelenskiy lacked leverage. However, at the recent G7 summit, the U.S. administration acknowledged that Kyiv is in a stronger position and even agreed to language promising continued pressure on Moscow. While Ukraine cannot rely solely on the U.S., the risk of being bullied into accepting Russian terms has decreased.
The European Union possesses a significant opportunity to support Ukraine. The most effective step it could take is to utilize the 210 billion euros of frozen Russian state assets to assist Kyiv directly. By tilting the conflict in Ukraine’s favor without extensive help from Washington, Europe would demonstrate its capacity for independent geopolitical action. Such a move would reinforce the principle that aggression does not yield long-term benefits. Following the setbacks in Iran, such an action would help shift the global balance of power toward those who prioritize diplomacy and international law.
