With the return of Trump and the fracturing of Western unity, Professor Barry Buzan argues the world has crossed a threshold — and that naming it clearly may be the first step to navigating it.

Despite escalating pressure, repeated negotiations, and even military confrontation, the United States and Iran remain locked in a persistent deadlock. The ongoing negotiations following the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities on February 28, 2026, illustrate the core problem: while Iran has signalled willingness to de-escalate—such as proposing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz—it has resisted addressing the nuclear issue upfront, seeking instead to defer it. The United States, by contrast, insists that nuclear constraints must be the starting point of any agreement. This divergence is not merely technical—it is structural. It reflects a deeper reality: the nuclear issue is not just another policy variable, but the most politically and symbolically charged component of the conflict. As a result, even intense pressure and partial compromises have failed to produce a breakthrough.

The escalating conflict in the Middle East is no longer a localised crisis; it has become a critical force reshaping the structure of the global economy. Unlike past energy shocks, its impact goes beyond supply disruptions or price volatility.

For China, the implications of the conflict in Iran extend far beyond a mere energy shock; it represents a veritable watershed moment.