A multipolar world is actively emerging, shifting away from US-dominated unipolarity towards a system with multiple, diverse power centres like India, China, and Brazil
THE West Asia conflict is increasingly viewed as a major catalyst for a multipolar world order, accelerating the transition away from US hegemony towards a fragmented global system. By initiating “Operation Epic Fury,” a joint military campaign on February 28, 2026, the US and Israel targeted Iran as the central “Rimland” node linking Eurasian powers, yet this action has deepened the shift toward a new, multi-centric global configuration.
There arise multi-dimensional implications of the 2026 Iran conflict on the emerging multipolar world.
First, there is the acceleration of “fragmented globalisation” which is leading the world towards the fundamental restructuring of the global world economy, moving from a unified, efficiency-driven system to one defined by “friend-shoring” – a strategy prioritising trade with political allies to build resilient supply chains. Geopolitical tensions are forcing nations to align with either Western-aligned frameworks or alternative structures supported by China and Russia.
Governments and companies are prioritising security, stability, and geopolitical alignment over cost-optimisation. This is particularly dominant in strategic sectors such as renewable energy, AI, critical minerals, and semiconductors.
Rather than a sudden collapse, globalisation is experiencing a redesign, with trade fragmenting into regional hubs. Major trade blocs are solidifying in ASEAN, the GCC, and Mercosur. The world must contend with the fact of potential high-stakes rivalries, especially China-Russia vs. Western Alignment. The world is facing a rise in “mini-lateral” trade deals, with Western-aligned nations deepening trade ties with partners like India and Mexico, while Russia and China strengthen their own economic partnerships.
This shift has economic consequences that are causing a slowdown in global trade, which is expected to grow by only 2.3% in 2026, as per data from the World Trade Organisation. It also creates an inflationary effect due to relocating production to higher-cost, yet politically “safe” regions.
Consider too the impact on strategy. Businesses are facing a new operating landscape where political relationships are as critical as commercial factors, leading to the rise of regionalised production. This trend, sometimes described as a move toward a new “Cold War II,” is accelerating due to rising tariffs, export controls, and the need to mitigate risks from non-aligned nations. The same acceleration is also of what is increasingly referred to as “Fragmented Globalisation”. The conflict is driving “friend-shoring” and the creation of aligned blocs rather than a unified global economy. This is forcing nations to choose between Western-aligned economic frameworks and alternative structures supported by China and Russia.
Despite the conflict, Iran has maintained its survival strategy, with an increasing share of regional transactions now conducted in Renminbi (RMB). China is strengthening its ties by utilising Iranian-influenced routes, reinforcing the Beijing-Moscow-Tehran axis as a central pillar of this new order. This rise in RMB and Eurasian Integration is leaving its footprints on geopolitics in ways never really witnessed before in global relations.
The West Asia conflict has shown the world a strategic “Multipolar Deterrence” Model. The conflict indicates a shift where endurance and asymmetric strategies (like the use of low-cost drones) can challenge traditional military superiority. The ability of Iran to withstand the conflict has, in some views, highlighted limits in Western power projection and facilitated a “multipolar deterrence” system.
The war has accelerated the decline of the US as a solitary architect of regional stability, as allies in Europe and Asia are left to manage the resulting energy crises and economic fallout, causing rifts between them and Washington. The US is beginning to confront the hard reality of the erosion of regional Influence:
While the conflict has increased the prominence of the multipolar argument, some analysts suggest it also displays a “multipolarity of power distribution, not action,” as Russia and China have not directly intervened military-wise, leaving the US still setting the main rules of engagement in a “Nihilistic Anarchy”.
The year 2026 has witnessed economic and geopolitical shifts with a global landscape defined by heightened geoeconomic fragmentation, with geoeconomic confrontation replacing environmental concerns as the top global risk. Growth is slowing to an estimated 2.6%–3.1% due to energy shocks from Middle East conflicts, persistent inflation, and rising economic nationalism, which sees governments acting as major industrial players.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) identifies geopolitical rivalry as the primary risk, causing fragmented trade, tech-protectionism, and deepening financial blocs. As slow Growth & Persistent Inflation evolve, global growth is subdued, with major economies slowing (US 1.5–2%, China 4.4–4.6%). Inflation remains structurally higher than pre-2020 levels, driven by energy shocks.
The US-led interventionist economic playbook is going global, reshaping the relationship between state and market, according to Lazard Geopolitical Advisory, a geopolitical advisory team which brings some of the world’s most experienced geopolitical minds together, along with Lazard’s unmatched business expertise. The Advisory 2026 will reveal the contours of the emerging global order set in motion by the upheaval and volatility that shaped 2025. It alerts businesses to develop the agility for a more fragmented and volatile global environment – and act to build the resilience necessary to protect themselves.
In just the last couple of years, the competition for critical minerals (lithium, cobalt) and water rights is accelerating, with 30+ new processing facilities expected. Foreign policies are shifting from sanctions to “conquest & control” in resource-rich areas (e.g., Venezuela, Greenland).
AI investment remains a bright spot, offsetting some trade headwinds, with rapid growth in specialized industries like hyperscale data centre services. Despite rising populist, anti-immigrant sentiment, advanced economies face extreme skill shortages, threatening AI and green energy transitions. Continued, albeit gradual, diversification away from the US dollar is expected as financial fragmentation continues
The conflict forced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, causing substantial disruption to global oil and gas, with Brent crude briefly exceeding $119 per barrel. The IMF reported that the war caused a reduction in global growth, pushing it down to 3.1% in 2026, causing a sharp slowdown.
GCC countries are navigating a delicate balance, strengthening security ties with the West while China and Russia consolidate their positions in the region. In summary, the 2026 conflict is less about the next world war and more about the chaotic transition to a multipolar world, where the “Eurasian siege” has failed to secure a return to a unipolar order, instead hardening the divide between opposing geopolitical blocs.
The World Economic Forum indicates that cooperative frameworks are crumbling, replaced by a “contested multipolar landscape” of competing blocs and that multilateralism is in retreat. Foreign policy has shifted toward “conquest & control,” with notable actions in Venezuela and increased strategic focus on the Arctic (Greenland).
Sovereign AI is treated as critical infrastructure, making it a primary focus of state-led cyber conflicts.
Continued instability in the Gaza Strip, the Russia-Ukraine war, and tensions involving Iran maintain pressure on energy markets and global defence spending remain unresolved flashpoints.
The acceleration of “fragmented globalisation” is reshaping the global economy, moving away from a unified system toward a model defined by geopolitical alignment, “friend-shoring,” and the development of rival economic blocs.
Industrialised economies are shifting supply chains toward allies and geographically closer partners to ensure security, rather than focusing on cost efficiency. This strategy aims to reduce dependency on geopolitical rivals, with 2026 data indicating this is a permanent restructuring rather than a temporary trend.
The global trade system is fracturing, with trade patterns increasingly dictated by security alliances and shared values.
Led by the US and EU, these efforts include US reshoring efforts to move manufacturing back home or to trusted, close partners.
Beijing and Moscow are advancing their own economic blocs, utilising platforms like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS to normalise sanctions circumvention, build alternative financial systems, and secure supply chains outside the Western sphere.
Emerging and developing economies are under pressure to choose between these competing frameworks. While some, like India, may seek to balance between blocs, others are being drawn into deeper economic dependence on one side.
The IMF notes that this fragmentation could reduce global GDP by up to 7% in the long run. Furthermore, Ernst & Young (EY) predicts a sharp slowdown in global trade growth in 2026.
The conflict driving this shift – accelerated by recent US-Iran tensions, US-China technology decoupling, and the ongoing Ukraine war – is making “strategic alignment” the new, more expensive norm for global commerce.
While power is dispersed among several major actors, the system is no longer characterised by a stable balance of multiple poles, but rather a “multipolar chaos”. This is described as a “multi-aligned” world where nations, especially middle powers, form flexible, issue-based coalitions rather than rigid alliances.
The rules-based international order is retreating, replaced by a, “deal-based” system focused on short-term gains, economic coercion, and direct negotiation. This shift has been accelerated by a more, “transactional” approach to diplomacy and a retreat from liberal multilateralism.
Countries like India are taking a proactive role in shaping this new order, acting as “poles” of influence themselves, particularly by leading the Global South and managing competing relationships with larger powers even as middle-powers shape alignments.
Economic nationalism is on the rise, with technology, energy security, and manufacturing capacity being used as tools of state power. Global supply chains are being restructured for resilience rather than efficiency, leading to a more bifurcated technological landscape.
The unipolar moment has definitively passed, with the US-led system in decline, forcing Europe to seek, “strategic autonomy”.
In this era, power is no longer concentrated in a single location, nor neatly divided. Instead, the global order is shifting towards a, “multi-aligned” reality where countries navigate a fluid and unpredictable landscape, making the old, rigid, “multipolarity” stories obsolete.
Washington entered the conflict hoping to restore the unipolar moment. Instead, it may have accelerated its funeral. Far from reviving American supremacy, the Iran conflict exposed the limits of coercive power in an age where history is no longer shaped by a single empire, but by competing centres of influence struggling to define a new world order.
_________________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
