America leaving its allies ‘in the dust’

US President Donald Trump has triggered a long-brewing global crisis of economics, security, and confidence. Now, nations considered integral to the West’s less-than-perfect, though successful, community of cooperation are fragmenting towards new points on the compass.

“[He] did not set out to engineer a global realignment through crisis,” assesses Atlantic Council geopolitical analyst Ratko Knežević.

“But history does not ask whether leaders planned events. It asks whether they were positioned to benefit from them.” Oil has become a weapon.

But the world is poised to switch energy sources. Trade has become a battleground. But this has exposed how everything is connected.

Politics has become about personalities. But billionaire tech bros and globalised corporate magnates are demanding policy vetoes. The result: the end of a world once ruled by efficiency, productivity and rules-based cooperation.

“In geopolitics, there are moments when systems do not evolve gradually but rather reset overnight,” observes Knežević.

“The world may be entering such a moment now.” He’s not the only one to think so. Brookings Institution senior analyst Fiona Hill says the world is in flux, and contested.

“Collapse and disorder are all part of a system adapting. We are in the throes of adaptation,” she argues.

“We’ve been living in a period of global turbulence for quite some time. This is not exactly new. But 2026 does seem particularly filled with peril and possibility.”

Those who do not learn from history “The evident unwillingness of the US to uphold the international order it nurtured in the decades after the Second World War could, if history is any guide, accelerate the decline in global trade growth,” argues Chatham House senior researcher David Lubin.

“And the trade patterns that will emerge in the new global order will inevitably be shaped by what that order ends up looking like.” We’ve seen this before. Pax Romana imposed an economic and legal order on Europe, North Africa and much of the Middle East.

Pax Britannica pushed the concepts of industrialisation and economic growth on much of the world. Pax Americana resulted in the fastest, most dramatic explosion of living standards, innovation and – believe it or not, peace – the world has ever seen. But times change.

Europe, Australia, and many other nations have forgotten the terrible cost of full-scale war, overwhelming plagues, widespread famine and civil unrest. All thanks to supportive global networks. For better or worse, those networks have – until now – been dominated by Washington.

“They have taken US political and economic benevolence and its military protection for granted,” argues Hill.

“The United States is now withdrawing from the system. That benevolence is a thing of the past.” Economics 101: Supply, demand – and confidence “Nations rarely fail because they lack power.

More often, they fail because they misjudge the consequences of using power,” observes Knežević. The US and Israel correctly assessed how easy their advanced airpower could bomb Iran’s military infrastructure into the ground. But they failed to anticipate how the ancient power of fear could choke the Strait of Hormuz’s economic artery.

And Iran’s wounded response has been unexpectedly severe. Attacks on energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar have caused damage that will take months – if not years – to repair. And that is yet another chokepoint for the global economy.

The global energy system is far more fragile than thought.

“A global shock does not require a complete disruption of supply. It requires uncertainty. And uncertainty is priced more aggressively than scarcity,” writes Knežević.

“In such conditions, prices do not rise gradually. They jump.” That, argues Chatham House’s Lubin, is just the start of it.

“History shows that global trade tends to grind to a halt when the world, or large chunks of it, goes into recession,” he writes.

“And the trade patterns that will emerge in the new global order will inevitably be shaped by what that order ends up looking like.” President Trump’s actions are actively shaping that future.

“Trump is not necessarily tearing things down for the sake of it. He is pursuing his own ideas of US strategic autonomy and forms of autarky, or economic independence and self-sufficiency,” argues Hill.

“Trump’s approach is clearly not inclusive nor altruistic, nor is it what other countries have come to expect from the United States on the world stage. Trump has narrowed America’s focus in a way that leaves allies and many citizens in the dust.

“ Cut off your nose to spite your face “This is where one’s legacy is ultimately defined – not in moments of calm but in moments when the system begins to fracture, when uncertainty spreads, and decisions become irreversible,” argues Knežević. He believes the United States may yet emerge as the winner.

“States whose prosperity depends on uninterrupted energy flows will not tolerate prolonged uncertainty. They will align decisively with the only proven security architecture capable of guaranteeing stability. That architecture is American.”

But the Trump Administration appears uninterested in preserving that architecture. It wants to exploit it.

“Trade in goods as well as finance is currently seen as leverage for dominance in the current global geopolitical competition – a sword to be wielded in the post-Pax Americana free-for-all, not just an arena to engage in,” argues Hill. But it’s not just Trump. The world order is being rewritten by multiple hands.

And it’s a rapidly growing geoeconomic Tower of Babel.

“Private corporations and superrich individuals, including ‘Technology Titans,’ are now as deeply invested in geopolitics as they are in the pursuit of their business interests,” warns Hill.

“They take public stances on issues of war and peace and engage directly with world leaders. And businessmen, not diplomats, have been the key figures in US efforts to negotiate peace.” These conflicting interests present both chaos and opportunity.

And China is well-positioned to reshape the future in its own image. It has strangled the influence of its new class of billionaires. It has already created its own economic trade network, BRICS.

It is actively offering its currency, the Yuan, as a stable alternative to the US dollar. It is throwing its enormous new military, economic and diplomatic weight around to get what it wants.

“Beijing’s commitment to dominate global manufacturing means that it is unlikely to change its approach in the near future,” argues Chatham House’s Lubin.

“As a result, China’s trading partners are, on balance, more likely to keep raising tariffs and non-tariff barriers to protect their domestic markets.” The end of Pax Americana?

“The future of free, fair, honest world trade currently seems in peril,” warns Hill.

“With the end of Pax Americana, we fear the end of post-WWII peace and prosperity and its accompanying phenomena of global business, global growth, and global advancement.” That era of relative peace and extraordinary prosperity is on its way out. But it’s not dead yet.

“In geopolitics, power is measured not by who speaks the loudest, but rather by who cannot be replaced,” argues Knežević.

“In a world once again defined by energy, security, and liquidity, the United States remains indispensable.” It has the power. But does it have the will?