War, pipelines and the great silence of the «allies»

It is not the first time that a war has been presented as “necessary” and has proved to be revealing. Not for the reasons governments cite, but for those they avoid saying. For every conflict of this type acts like an x-ray, showing what really goes on behind the words, who can and who won't, who talks and who finally acts.

The war against Iran - whatever it is called - is not another episode of “tension” in the Middle East. It is a test of the strength of the international system itself. And if it reveals anything with almost cynical clarity, it is that the famous “multipolar system” exists mainly as an expectation - not as a reality.

Because if there was, we would see things differently.

We would see Russia and China standing next to Iran militarily. We would see organisations like the BRICS or the SCO gaining substance beyond joint statements. We would eventually see an adversary working.

Instead, we see silence. Or, to be precise, we see diplomacy.

And diplomacy, as always, is the polite way of saying “I won't fight for you.”.

Russia, immersed in the Ukrainian front, is doing what it has always done in major conflicts, calculating. It is not a romantic power, nor an ideological one. It is imperial. And empires do not commit suicide out of solidarity. It needs Iran, but not so much as to open a second front with the United States. It prefers a dependent ally to an uncontrolled war.

China, on the other hand, is in no hurry. It almost never fights when it can wait. Its strategy is not written in military doctrines but in trade flows. Iran is a critical piece of a larger puzzle, but not the only one. Oil comes from elsewhere too. Routes open and close. What Beijing does not want is destabilization it cannot control.

And above all, it does not want to play the US game on US terms.

So, instead of conflict, it chooses attrition. Instead of rupture, he chooses waiting. Instead of victory, he chooses exhaustion of the opponent.

It's an attitude that doesn't impress, but often wins.

As for the others, the Gulf countries, the regional powers, the “blocs” that are supposedly being formed, the picture is even more revealing. They all talk about cooperation, but they all act with survival in mind. Azerbaijan cooperates with those who give it a role. Saudi Arabia is balancing. The Emirates are investing. No one sacrifices.

Geopolitics has no friends. It has interests with an expiration date.

And that's where the great illusion that international organizations can function as single subjects breaks down. BRICS is not an alliance. It is a coincidence of interests. The SCO is not NATO of the East. It is a forum for conflict management.

When the critical moment comes, the state returns to itself.

So Iran is left alone, not because it has no allies, but because no one has a reason to die for it.

What about the US? They're doing what great powers in relative decline always do, they're trying to control the world not necessarily by conquering it, but by cutting its connections. Energy, transport, corridors. Not territories - flows.

If you control the flows, you control the future.

That's why Iran matters. Not as a country, but as a hub. If it closes, a whole map closes with it.

And so we come to the essential point, this war is not for the present. It is for the future that is being prepared without noise. A future where power will not necessarily be seen on the battlefields, but on the maps of trade routes.

And in this future, the “allies” will continue to be useful - until they are no longer so.

As always.

Author of the article:

Panagiotis Koumoundouros