The king is dead, long live the king: Iran ceasefire the nail in the coffin of the ‘rules-based order’

It is clear from the outset that there was little to no material plan of what the end objective was – clearly discernable or defined – for the United States, while for their partner, Israel, their push for complete decapitation and regime change regardless of the fallout for the rest of the world has been well established over the past 40 years (at least).

While we can debate the impact of no material plan or end objective from the global hegemon, the ramifications of the conflict have severely damaged America’s prestige, authority and capacity to legitimise the global rules-based order, with disastrous impacts.

Regardless of whether or not the current “ceasefire” holds (and ultimately it seems like it will come down to whether Benjamin Netanyahu actually wants a ceasefire), the bloody nose gifted the United States by Iran has seen the blood in the water, watched by the sharks of Russia, China and other revisionist and rising powers seeking to redesign their own part of the globe to suit their own ambitions and desires.

As the negotiations begin to take place and both sides begin their horse trading over their respective non-negotiables and red lines, the world and, in particular, middle powers like Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany and others will be waiting with bated breath to see the true ramifications, particularly as many economies, polities begin to faulter.

So what does this all mean?

The art of the deal

VIEW ALL

Critically, as a result of the pseudo-stalemate between the two parties, both sides have begun to present their respective demands and “red lines”, each of which has significant ramifications for the post-Second World War economic, political and strategic order.

Of particular concern is the list of 10 demands named by Iran, in particular the continued Iranian “control” over the Strait of Hormuz, including the taxing of each ship traversing the waterway to be split between the Iranians and Omanis, a withdrawal of the United States from the Middle East, something President Donald Trump seems to have partially hinted at, stating that the US would arm up and continue loitering around the region.

Further concerns worth considering: an end of US and, by extension, Israeli strikes against Iran and its proxies throughout the region, the lifting of all sanctions against Iran and, finally, the formalisation of the agreement before the eyes of the world through the United Nations Security Council.

Each of these alone would serve to significantly impact the prestige, presence and influence of the United States on the global stage, further accelerating the rise of the parallel world order spearheaded by Beijing and Moscow. Now don’t mistake me, I am not saying that leaders in Beijing and Moscow are masterminding this behind the scenes, rather they are taking advantage of the inertia of the circumstances and using it to build their own world order.

Bringing us to the ramifications of these factors combined and what we have could be potentially described as America’s Suez moment, which in 1956 formalised the death of the British Empire as a true global power, cementing the United States as the world’s hegemon (at least for the Western world) and the power solely responsible for all foreign policy in the West.

Meanwhile, the United States under Donald Trump has responded with their own 15-point ceasefire plan, with strict conditions and “red lines”, including a complete end to all Iranian uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, including the dismantling of all existing nuclear capabilities and infrastructure and the submission to complete transparency to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Further to this, the United States has also demanded the end to all proxy support and the use of the proxy networks as an asymmetric strategy against the region and the end of “exporting revolution” across the Gulf states. Additionally, the United States has demanded that the Strait of Hormuz remains open and strict limitations of the nation’s formidable missile programs as part of a broader self-defence restriction.

Finally, the United States has also committed to a series of carrots, to go with the stick, including full relief of the sanctions, assistance with civilian nuclear programs, including technical support for the nation’s nuclear electricity generation projects and, critically, the removal of “snapback” mechanisms that would remove the provisions for the automatic reimposition of sanctions without a UN Security Council vote.

While it has in some circles been framed as a major back down by self-described “world’s best negotiator” President Donald Trump, it appears that both sides have traded their fair share of blows and now bloodied and, in the case of the United States, partially humiliated, are seeking a mutually beneficial out before this escalates further.

What does this all mean?

Regardless the length of the ceasefire, the reality is the ramifications economically, politically, strategically and diplomatically will continue to reverberate both within the confines of the Middle East and globally for years to come.

And we are far from through in feeling the real ramifications, particularly as the last vestiges of American supremacy and military invincibility have been shattered, the claims by “revisionist” powers that their pursuit of nuclear weapons are a security measure against great powers seeking to prevent foreign interference, invasion or occupation as legitimate claims lest they want to suffer the same fate is Bashar al-Assad, Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi.

For the world’s great powers, particularly those seeking to challenge the legitimacy and capability of the United States as the world’s hegemon, this has reinforced the fallout from the disastrous US withdrawal from Afghanistan, which only served to embolden Russia to make its move on Ukraine, and China’s claims and ambitions in the Indo-Pacific.

Ultimately though, the main fallout of this disastrous entanglement will be the end of the post-Second World War economic, political and strategic order and formalise the emergence of a multipolar world, one that is increasingly complex, driven in large part by the competing interests of the great powers but increasingly by smaller and middle powers insecure in the new world where the only law is the law of the jungle.

For Australia, this new reality is still in the early stage of labour pains, with the ramifications of the newly emerging multipolar world only now starting to become a reality of everyday life, as for the first time since the end of the Second World War, Australians confront the reality that what happens over there now disproportionally affects what happens here.

And that realisation should prompt a response from both the nation’s leaders and the public.

Final thoughts

The escalating Middle East conflict in 2026 should serve as a stark wake-up call for Australia, highlighting the fragility of our economic, strategic and political foundations.

Economically, the disruption of maritime corridors like the Strait of Hormuz, a central pillar of President Trump’s ceasefire framework, has directly translated to soaring petrol prices and renewed inflationary pressures across the country. For a nation so heavily reliant on global trade routes, these shocks underscore the peril of our current supply chain vulnerabilities and the urgent need for greater domestic energy security and “onshoring” of critical industries.

Strategically, the crisis demonstrates that Australia can no longer afford to be an over-reliant partner. As our primary security ally, the United States, becomes increasingly bogged down in the complex “Proxy Paradigm” of the Gulf, the strategic vacuum in the Indo-Pacific grows more pronounced. This necessitates a rapid acceleration of our own sovereign defence capabilities.

We must move beyond the rhetoric of “middle power” diplomacy and invest heavily in the industrial base required to sustain ourselves during periods of prolonged global instability.

Politically, the conflict has tested Australia’s social cohesion, as foreign grievances frequently manifest as domestic discord. To safeguard our political security, the government must prioritise a “National Interest First” agenda that balances international obligations with the preservation of internal unity. Ultimately, prosperity is not a given; it is earned through foresight.

Australia must take its own sovereignty far more seriously by diversifying trade partners and bolstering our military deterrent. We cannot afford to outsource our survival to a world in flux. The 2026 ceasefire may provide a temporary reprieve but the lesson remains clear: a truly sovereign Australia is a secure Australia, and the time to build that resilience is now.

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Stephen Kuper

Steve has an extensive career across government, defence industry and advocacy, having previously worked for cabinet ministers at both Federal and State levels.