The United States and Iran sat across from each other in Islamabad, Pakistan. The negotiating table still bears the echoes of gunfire. Defying initial expectations of a short conflict, the war has dragged on for six weeks. Whether the negotiations will lead to a successful end to the war remains uncertain. However, regardless of the outcome, the scars this war has left on the global order run deep and wide.
First, signs are emerging that the United States is drifting away from its strategic competition with China. Washington designated China as its top competitor in its National Security Strategy last November and Defense Strategy this January. Yet this war has significantly disrupted America's plan to focus on the Indo-Pacific. Massive military supplies have been depleted, and rapid response readiness has been shaken. Meanwhile, China has seized the opportunity to fill its vulnerabilities and build national strength during this "strategic lull" while America remains bogged down in the Middle East. Beijing has unveiled a new Five-Year Plan aimed at reducing external dependence, advancing industrial technology, and increasing supply chain self-sufficiency. In the artificial intelligence race, while the U.S. concentrates on generative AI, China is diversifying investments into robotics, 6G mobile communications, and embodied AI. With America's fiscal capacity and political focus scattered by war, China is exploiting the gaps. The balance of U.S.-China competition is quietly shifting.
Second, Europe's push for self-reliance may accelerate further. President Donald Trump displayed overt hostility toward NATO during this war, hurling the word "cowards" at the alliance. European efforts to reduce dependence on the United States, already underway before the war, are expected to gain momentum. Germany has declared it will pour approximately $750 billion into defense over the next four years, with annual defense spending projected to reach about $189 billion by 2029—a level comparable to Russia's wartime economy. Division of roles within Europe is also taking shape: Germany handles financing and defense industry, Poland manages frontline defense, France provides nuclear forces and expeditionary capabilities, and Britain contributes naval power and nuclear deterrence. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's willingness to endure criticism as a "Trump sycophant" while maintaining relations with Washington can ultimately be read as buying time for self-reliance. America may lose its Atlantic alliance.
Third, global energy supply chains are being shaken. The International Energy Agency director called this war "the greatest threat to global energy security in history." Oil prices surged 55% within three weeks of the war's outbreak, and the Strait of Hormuz—through which approximately 20% of the world's oil and 33% of fertilizers pass—was effectively blockaded. Fuel rationing, reduced work hours, and factory shutdowns followed in many places. Going forward, nations will treat energy not as a mere commodity but as a weapon for survival. China is expanding its strategic petroleum reserves, Europe is hastening its renewable energy transition, and Korea is also seeking ways to reduce its dependence on the Middle East. Energy supply chains that once operated on market logic are transforming into battlegrounds for national survival.
Fourth, the Middle East order is being reorganized. Pro-American Gulf monarchies are soberly reassessing the value of their alliance with Washington. When the U.S. prioritized deploying air defense systems to protect Israel early in the war, Gulf infrastructure was left relatively undefended. The distrust that "when the moment of choice comes, America will prioritize Israeli security over the Gulf" appears to be solidifying. Memories remain fresh of America's lack of active response during the 2019 attack on Saudi Aramco facilities. The 2025 incident in which the U.S. ultimately failed to prevent Israel's strike on Hamas negotiating representatives operating in Doha, Qatar, has further fueled this distrust. The trend of Gulf states moving away from the U.S.-centered order toward a "strategic middle ground" will become increasingly pronounced.
Korea's position has also grown more complicated. In terms of security, cooperation with the United States remains irreplaceable. However, this war simultaneously poses new challenges from three directions: U.S.-China competition, alliance self-reliance, and energy restructuring. A strategy that relies on just one pillar no longer works. The world is rapidly moving from a rules-based order to one based on power and interests. In this era of upheaval, a multi-layered and comprehensive response—that is the survival strategy now required of Korea.
