Part I: Who Controls the Pressure Points in a Multipolar World? What Does That Mean for the Horn of Africa?

The current geopolitical moment is not defined by a single conflict, but by a pattern of shifting power, one that is clearly seen when examining the dynamics between Donald Trump, China, and Russia. The United States is no longer uncontested, and its own strategies may be accelerating a transition toward a more fragmented, multipolar world.

This first part lays the background by discussing BRICS-NATO relations and the multipolar world.

BRICS-NATO

Trump-China

Donald Trump’s approach to China is aggressive confrontation paired with strategic ambiguity. On one hand, Trump escalated tariffs, restricted technology exports, and framed China as a systemic rival. On the other, his policies often lacked consistency, leaving allies and adversaries uncertain about long-term U.S. intentions. Analysts note that this ambiguity has produced a tit-for-tat dynamic, with China responding symmetrically—restricting exports like rare earth materials and reinforcing its own economic defenses. 

While the U.S. acts disruptively, China plays the long game. China’s strategy is not to defeat the U.S. directly, but to outlast it—economically, diplomatically, and institutionally. Its global investments, steady policy posture, and avoidance of sudden escalation contrast sharply with the volatility of U.S. decision-making.

Some analysts argue that China’s greatest advantage is not its strength, but America’s inconsistency. As one assessment suggests, China could “win by default” if U.S. leadership continues to erode its own alliances and credibility. 

Space is becoming a site of technological dominance, a domain of military infrastructure, and a future arena for resource competition. In this sense, the U.S.-China rivalry is expanding vertically, beyond traditional geography.

More importantly, Trump’s approach has strained traditional alliances. Recent data suggests that global alignment is drifting toward Beijing, with more countries acting in ways closer to China than the United States. Countries that once aligned closely with Washington are increasingly hedging—maintaining ties with the U.S. while deepening engagement with China. This reflects a broader shift: power is no longer organized around loyalty, but around flexibility.

Trump - Russia

Under Donald Trump, U.S. policy toward Russia has been marked by tension at the institutional level but ambiguity at the rhetorical level. This ambiguity matters because it shapes global alignment.

As Western pressure intensifies—especially after the Russia-Ukraine War—Russia has moved closer to China. This is not a natural alliance, but a strategic convergence driven by necessity. 

The result is a loose geopolitical triangle. The U.S. attempts to contain China. China seeks stability and expansion. Russia disrupts and repositions itself.

This triangular tension is one of the defining features of today’s global order.

A third factor: the Iran war

To understand the current geopolitical shift, we have to move beyond Trump, China, and Russia—and focus on a narrow strip of water: the Strait of Hormuz.

This is not just another battlefield. It is the single most powerful geopolitical lever in the global system today. Roughly 20% of global oil and a major share of Liquified Natural Gas pass through the Strait of Hormuz. That means one thing: whoever controls Hormuz can indirectly control the global economy. 

The ongoing war involving Iran, the United States, and Israel has effectively transformed this chokepoint into a weapon. Shipping has been disrupted or selectively allowed. Oil prices have surged globally. Insurance, logistics, and trade flows have destabilized. Even partial disruption has caused one of the largest energy shocks in modern history.

The key insight from this war is not military—it is strategic. Iran does not need to defeat the United States militarily. It only needs to make the cost of confrontation global. Iran is maintaining pressure on Hormuz because it gives it enormous leverage over Washington and the global economy. This is asymmetric warfare at its peak: The U.S. has superior military force, but Iran has superior geographic leverage. Even if U.S. naval forces reopen the strait, Iran can still launch missiles from inland, deploy drones, and mine shipping lanes.

What makes Hormuz uniquely dangerous is that it produces a system-wide shock, not just a temporary problem. Oil price spikes translate directly into higher food prices, rising transport costs, and inflation shocks worldwide. Even anticipation of disruption can trigger global economic contraction. 

Hormuz is not just about oil. Approximately 20% of global LNG passes through it. A major share of fertilizer inputs depends on Gulf exports. This creates a chain reaction. Energy crisis leads to fertilizer shortage which translates into food crisis.

The crisis has already stranded ships, reduced traffic by up to 90% at certain points, and forced rerouting and selective access. This signals that globalization is no longer stable—it is conditional.

Multipolar System

The Iran war is not producing a clear winner—but it is solidifying redistributive advantage.

China benefits because it continues buying discounted Iranian oil, avoids direct military entanglement, and positions itself as an economic stabilizer. 

Russia also benefits from higher global oil prices and increased demand for non-Gulf energy because the crisis effectively raises the value of Russian exports.

For the United States, military dominance does not translate into control, allies face economic pain, and global perception of stability weakens. Even attempts to reopen Hormuz risk escalating into a wider war.

The Iran war and Hormuz crisis, thus shows that power is no longer about domination. It is about the ability to disrupt systems. Iran shook the world. And that is enough to raise oil prices globally, shift alliances, strengthen China and Russia, and expose limits of U.S. power.

It shows that in the 21st century, power belongs not only to the strongest—but to those who control the system’s most fragile points. Iran plays a growing role in this configuration. 

Taken together, global power is tilting—but not collapsing. The U.S. remains militarily dominant. China is rising economically and diplomatically. Russia retains disruptive power. However, the key shift is structural: the world is increasingly moving away from the U.S.-centered order toward a multipolar system where influence is distributed and contested.