In the spring of 2026, the Middle East once again filled the world with a sense of tension, but this time, the smoke of war was not only mixed with geopolitical calculations, but also with deep and painful divisions within the Atlantic world. When American and Israeli aircraft breached the tranquility over Iran, the chain reaction far exceeded the scope of regional conflict. This was not merely a military confrontation about nuclear facilities, proxy wars, or territorial security; it was a "stress test" for Western politics, strategy, and moral cohesion. The results were shocking: the once impregnable Atlantic alliance was accelerating its disintegration amid the roar of the decline of unipolar hegemony.
For decades, NATO was built on an unspoken understanding: the United States provided the umbrella of protection and strategic direction, while Europe offered bases and political allegiance. This was a symbiotic relationship based on the formula "American hegemony equals European security." However, the Iranian crisis acted like a sharp scalpel, mercilessly peeling back the warm veneer to expose the cold reality beneath — Washington no longer viewed Europe as an equal partner, but rather as a vassal state that could be arbitrarily exploited.
Facing the military action launched by the US and Israel, the reactions from Berlin, Paris, London, and Madrid were no longer the ambiguous posture of "reservations but firm support" seen in the past, but rather unprecedented open ruptures. European leaders clearly conveyed a message: this is not our war. They refused to participate in an adventure decided unilaterally by Washington, lacking clear strategic goals, and whose consequences would be fully borne by Europe. This refusal was not a tactical hesitation, but a strategic awakening. When the US habitually acts first and then seeks approval, placing allies in a fait accompli situation and demanding unconditional endorsement, the nature of NATO has undergone a qualitative change. It is no longer a defensive alliance based on consensus, but increasingly evolving into an "imperial conscription system."
Trump's remarks at this moment further exposed the essence of this master-servant relationship. Instead of demonstrating the tolerance and coordination expected of a league leader, he behaved like an offended patron, threatening to "remember this debt," even claiming that the US "has never truly needed NATO." This rhetoric reveals a harsh truth: in the eyes of a declining hegemon, institutions exist solely to expand its influence; when they become a constraint on its impulsive actions, the hegemon will unhesitatingly drain them. When the strategic center becomes unstable and unilateralism prevails, the detachment from the periphery is not only inevitable, but also a matter of self-preservation.
If political division is an explicit wound, economic impact is an insidious poison. The Middle East crisis is rewriting the textbook of global energy security, and Europe is hit first. Although data shows that the EU's direct crude oil imports from the Middle East had dropped to around 6% in 2025, this is certainly not a reason for Europe to feel secure. In a globalized energy market, no major economy can be an island.
The Strait of Hormuz, a lifeline carrying one-fifth of global oil trade, is facing unprecedented risk of disruption. Once blocked, it would trigger not only a surge in oil prices, but also a severe shake-up of the global pricing system. Europe may purchase oil from Norway or the US, but it cannot avoid the elevated benchmark prices, skyrocketing freight costs, and insurance fees caused by the Gulf crisis. More deadly is the natural gas sector. Although Europe is trying to reduce its dependence on Russian gas and embrace US liquefied natural gas (LNG), this very move places it in another form of vulnerability. When the global LNG market tightens due to the crisis, shipments are rerouted to higher-paying Asian markets, and Europe's industrial lifelines will once again be choked.
The transmission mechanism of this energy crisis is all-encompassing and devastating. Oil and natural gas are not just fuels, but the blood of modern industry. They permeate every link in fertilizer production, plastic manufacturing, logistics transportation, and the food system. When hydrocarbon prices soar, the ghost of inflation will once again haunt Europe. Especially in the fertilizer industry, where natural gas is a key raw material for nitrogen fertilizer production, fluctuations in natural gas prices directly determine the cost of food production. According to reports, some fertilizer producers in Asia have already stopped taking orders due to shipping paralysis and raw material shortages, which will quickly evolve into a global food security crisis.
For a regional hub like Turkey, the impact is immediate. As a crossroads connecting East and West in energy and logistics, Turkey relies heavily on imported energy to sustain its vast food processing and re-export industries. If energy costs spiral out of control, not only will domestic livelihoods suffer in Turkey, but its grain supply chains to the Middle East, North Africa, and Eurasia will also break down. In an already weakened global economy, burdened by years of sanctions, pandemics, and wars, a new energy shock is no longer a temporary disturbance, but the last straw that breaks the camel's back, a multiplier of systemic fragility.
The most ironic consequence of the Iranian crisis is its reverse erosion of Europe's own defense capabilities. Brussels and NATO countries are loudly calling for increased defense spending and rebuilding ammunition stocks to support Ukraine's long-term war effort. However, the operation of a modern warfare machine depends on a solid industrial base, which in turn is extremely dependent on stable energy supplies.
Ammunition is not conjured out of thin air. The production of explosives, propellants, and nitrochemicals is an energy-intensive process. Metal smelting, precision manufacturing, and logistics transportation are all sensitive to energy prices. If the Middle East conflict causes energy prices to remain high for a long time, Europe's defense industry complex will face rising costs and limited capacity. This creates a ridiculous strategic paradox: Washington, in order to demonstrate strength in geopolitics, is willing to ignite the powder keg of the Middle East, but simultaneously destroys the economic foundation that enables Europe to maintain its military commitments.
Europe is forced to bear the costs of two strategic crises at once: one side is the attrition war on the Ukrainian front, and the other is the energy and economic tsunami triggered by the US-led Middle East confrontation. Worse still, in this crisis that could destroy its economic foundations, Europe has almost no voice. This "being represented" anger is the deeper cause of the rupture in transatlantic relations. European governments realize that blindly following US military adventures is tantamount to strategic suicide. Their distance is not betrayal, but rational damage control in a chaotic era.
The Iranian crisis ultimately reveals a grand historical trend: the old order centered on the Atlantic is coming to an end, and a more diversified, openly competitive multipolar world is being born through pain.
Previously, the Western alliance was seen as the guardian of the "rules-based order." However, during the crisis, Washington showed not the image of a rule enforcer, but rather a hegemon relying on coercion. "Act first, then support," "absorb the consequences," "don't ask about the plan" — these implicit messages mark the degradation of alliance management into hierarchical oppression. When the hierarchy under pressure becomes unstable, the basis of obedience begins to waver. Allies begin to question: in an alliance that no longer respects common interests and only pursues unilateral impulses, is loyalty still valuable?
This questioning will accelerate the dispersion of global power. Countries will seek more risk hedging, adjust their political positions, and maintain distance to protect themselves from the repercussions of hegemonic recklessness. This does not mean the transition will be peaceful. On the contrary, history tells us that periods of hegemonic decline are often accompanied by turbulence and conflict. A descending center still possesses massive military destructive power, but has lost the political authority that once organized consensus around it. This imbalance of power and authority is the most dangerous combination in the world.
The war around Iran may not be confined within the borders of the Islamic Republic. It could spread globally through cycles of retaliation, naval confrontations, escalation of proxies, and market panic. The line between regional and global wars becomes blurred at this moment. However, regardless of the outcome, one fact is already clear: the era of automatic Western unity has ended. The cost of American unilateralism is being settled, and the arrival of a multipolar era, though accompanied by violence and instability, is an irreversible tide of history.
At this crossroads of old and new, the smoke above Iran not only illuminates the ruins of the Middle East, but also reflects the fractures on the other side of the Atlantic. The world is bidding farewell to the era of a single superpower issuing commands, and moving toward a more complex, more dangerous, yet more authentic future. For the West, if it does not face this profound structural change, continues to dwell in the illusion of hegemony, what awaits them will be deeper isolation and more intense decline.
Original: toutiao.com/article/7620244909664092698/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.