Trump’s Move… and Its Global Implications

By Othman Mirghani

With U.S. President Donald Trump announcing that he is no longer interested in a ceasefire agreement with Iran and shifting his demand to “unconditional surrender,” the conflict with Iran has entered a more dangerous phase, signaling major transformations for the region and the world.

Trump made it clear that the goal is no longer to de-escalate, but something “much bigger,” hinting at a veiled threat to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei by saying that they know his location “precisely,” but currently have no intention of targeting him “for now.” What Washington is essentially demanding is the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, a complete halt to uranium enrichment, strict limitations on the ballistic missile program, and an end to Tehran’s support for its proxies in the region. As for regime change, that currently appears to be no more than rhetoric aimed at increasing pressure on Tehran.

Trump’s stance is in line with his now-familiar approach: escalating threats and rhetoric to extract major concessions. In this context, he publicly rejected the assessment of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified before Congress that Iran is not close to acquiring a nuclear weapon and is not pursuing one at the moment. At the same time, the U.S. has redeployed troops and refueling aircraft to the region, signaling readiness for direct confrontation and potentially using bunker-buster bombs to deliver a crippling blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

The danger of this approach lies in that it leaves Iran with only two options: fight or collapse. Iranian leaders have long rejected the demand for “zero enrichment” and do not trust any American or Israeli promises not to attack the regime again if it abandons its nuclear and missile ambitions. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared yesterday that his country “will not surrender” and that any American military intervention would lead to “irreparable consequences.” The Iranian regime sees the danger of surrender as far greater than the cost of waging a long war.

While a comprehensive settlement in the form of a “deal of the century” with Iran—based on halting enrichment activities—cannot be ruled out entirely, this scenario currently seems unlikely, leaving the door open for further escalation.

Regionally, the expansion of war would threaten major and vital interests and could push Iran to retaliate by targeting U.S. forces in the region or even closing the Strait of Hormuz, potentially triggering a global energy crisis.

The repercussions certainly extend beyond the region, and the whole world is closely watching developments—particularly China and Russia, which see in this conflict both a challenge and an opportunity.

Moscow is concerned about the potential loss of another important ally after the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. Nevertheless, it may view the war as an opportunity for geopolitical expansion, by supplying more weapons to Tehran in exchange for cheap oil and drones, and benefiting from the collapse of Iran’s oil exports to become China and India’s primary supplier.

As for Beijing, its greatest fear is a disruption of oil supplies, as it imports 30–40% of its needs from the region. Any escalation in the Strait of Hormuz would hit its economy and industries hard and stoke inflation.

To mitigate this, China may accelerate efforts to diversify energy sources by increasing imports from Russia, tapping into strategic reserves, or even buying Iranian oil “under the table” at reduced prices.

On the other hand, the longer U.S. forces remain in the Gulf and the Middle East, the greater China’s maneuverability in its trade and strategic conflict with Washington. Moreover, Beijing could position itself as a peace broker, boosting its regional influence.

For Trump, if he achieves his goals through the gamble of going to war, he will enhance his desired image as a strong leader who gets what he wants through pressure and force. At the same time, he would weaken the anti-American axis, based on Iran being the cornerstone of Russia’s—and to some extent China’s—alliances in the region.

However, the global risks outweigh the potential gains in the case of a prolonged war or unforeseen chaos. The international order as we know it could face a serious fracture, with the logic of power prevailing over respect for state sovereignty—opening the door to future interventions by powers like Russia, China, and India. If Trump’s gamble and Israel’s bet fail and the Iranian regime survives, it may accelerate its pursuit of nuclear weapons. This would inevitably lead to a dangerous nuclear arms race, strengthen the Russia-China-Iran axis, and further undermine international organizations such as the United Nations.

This is a conflict that not only redraws the map of the region—it could hasten the fragmentation of the global order and usher in a more violent, less stable world.