At the India Today Conclave 2026, geopolitical consultant Adelle Nazarian said the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran could significantly reshape global alliances and accelerate changes in the international power structure. Speaking during a discussion on the evolving geopolitical landscape, she argued that although war brings immense human suffering and hardship, it also intensifies strategic competition among nations seeking to shape the emerging global order.
Nazarian noted that the war, which has now entered its third week, is already influencing geopolitical alignments across several regions. According to her, the conflict could lead to stronger strategic partnerships between countries such as the United States and India while also pushing several Gulf nations closer to Western powers. She suggested that the current crisis may trigger a broader realignment in West Asia, where countries increasingly reassess their strategic relationships in response to security challenges.
She emphasised that no war produces winners from a humanitarian perspective, as the human cost is always severe. However, she explained that geopolitical dynamics operate differently from humanitarian considerations. From a strategic standpoint, she said, the conflict represents a major contest over how the future global order will evolve and which countries will shape it.
Nazarian argued that the situation could ultimately strengthen ties between the United States and India, which she described as an increasingly important partnership in the global strategic landscape. She also suggested that the conflict may encourage greater alignment between Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations and Western powers. In her view, countries positioned between major power blocs—such as India—could benefit from this realignment as global alliances shift.
While discussing internal developments within Iran, Nazarian said that public opinion inside the country appears complex and divided. She explained that her conversations with individuals living in Iran indicate a range of views about the political and economic situation. Nevertheless, she observed that many Iranians seem increasingly frustrated by economic hardship, social restrictions, and limited political freedoms.
Nazarian noted that a significant number of Iranians, including members of the diaspora living in the United States, Europe, and the Gulf region, favour a more democratic political system that is less influenced by religious authority. According to her, economic struggles have affected not only ordinary citizens but also individuals who once belonged to Iran’s economic elite. These pressures, she suggested, have contributed to growing dissatisfaction within the country.
Despite these challenges, Nazarian stressed that meaningful political change in Iran would ultimately need to come from within the country rather than being imposed from outside. External pressure alone, she argued, cannot produce lasting political transformation without internal support.
She also highlighted the potential role of powerful institutions within Iran’s political structure, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Nazarian suggested that internal factions within the Iranian establishment may soon face critical decisions about the country’s political direction. According to her, influential groups within the system will need to determine whether they intend to maintain the current structure that has existed for nearly five decades or respond to increasing public demand for change.
At the same time, Nazarian said she does not believe Iran’s future leadership is likely to emerge from an exiled figure or an external political movement. In her view, any leadership transition would likely come from within the country’s existing political framework.
Nazarian also discussed the broader issue of political systems built around explicit religious identities. She argued that states that strongly define themselves through religious political frameworks often encounter long-term challenges in sustaining stability and governance. As examples, she mentioned Iran’s Islamic Republic and Pakistan, suggesting that modern societies increasingly tend to move toward secular political institutions and democratic governance models.
She added that many Iranians today identify more strongly with their cultural and historical Persian heritage than with religious ideology. This evolving identity, she suggested, could influence future political developments within the country.
Turning to the wider regional implications of the conflict, Nazarian said the war could accelerate shifts in strategic alignments across West Asia. Several Gulf states, she noted, are already reassessing their security relationships and may move closer to Western powers and partners such as India. Countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates have faced security pressures linked to Iran in recent years, prompting them to reconsider their strategic priorities.
Nazarian suggested that Iran could face increasing diplomatic isolation if its current political structure remains unchanged and if tensions with neighbouring states continue to escalate.
Energy security, she explained, remains one of the key factors influencing geopolitical dynamics in the region. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime corridor for global oil shipments, continues to be a focal point of concern as tensions threaten to disrupt energy supplies. However, she also argued that future geopolitical competition may increasingly revolve around technological capabilities and access to critical minerals rather than traditional oil dominance alone.
According to Nazarian, many countries are already diversifying their economic strategies and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. As a result, emerging technologies, artificial intelligence, and access to rare earth elements and critical minerals are likely to become central to future global competition.
She described the evolving geopolitical environment as a form of “Cold War 2.0,” though she emphasised that it differs significantly from the Cold War of the twentieth century. Instead of being driven primarily by military confrontation between ideological blocs, the new strategic rivalry is likely to revolve around technological innovation, economic influence, and control over key resources.
Nazarian concluded by saying that the United States is likely to remain one of the world’s leading military and technological powers. She predicted that its partnership with India would play a crucial role in shaping the future balance of power, as both countries increasingly collaborate on security, technology, and economic initiatives in an evolving global order.
