When Great Powers Gamble, Small Nations Pay the Price
Opinion
Escalating confrontation in the Gulf threatens global shipping, energy supply and the economic stability of countries far beyond the battlefield
By Vijay Makhan
Those who have spent a lifetime observing international affairs learn one enduring lesson: wars launched with confidence rarely end as their architects imagine. They expand, they entangle new actors, and they generate consequences far beyond the calculations of those who initiate them.
Events in the Middle East are evolving rapidly. Yet beyond the daily headlines, the broader pattern now emerging deserves careful attention.
Massive Escalation: US vs Iran War Spreads to Indian Ocean. Pic – NewsX
The escalating confrontation between the United States, Israel and Iran carries all the characteristics of a conflict that risks widening beyond its original parameters. What initially appeared to be a limited exchange of military strikes now threatens to draw in additional actors and destabilise an already fragile region.
Most troubling is the shifting narrative surrounding the justification for recent military action. Only recently, Washington declared that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had been “obliterated”. Now,the narrative is that Tehran was allegedly on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon within weeks. Such contradictions inevitably raise questions about credibility and about the strategic coherence of the policies being pursued.
The timing of the strikes has further deepened international unease. Diplomatic efforts were underway under Omani mediation, with negotiations believed to be close to resuming. Instead of diplomacy, however, the world is once again confronted with military escalation.
Diplomacy is overtaken by force.
For decades, warnings about Iran’s imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons have been repeated with striking regularity with a timeline often measured in weeks or months, yet those deadlines have continually shifted forward as the years passed. Meanwhile, no conclusive evidence has been produced to prove that Iran had crossed the threshold into weaponisation.
None of this diminishes the legitimate concerns surrounding nuclear proliferation. Those concerns are serious and deserve sustained diplomatic engagement. But when explanations for military escalation shift from one justification to another, confidence in international leadership inevitably erodes.
Credibility, once weakened, is difficult to restore.
The Economic Shockwaves Already Underway
For countries far removed from the battlefield, the immediate consequences of war are often economic rather than military.
The Strait of Hormuz — one of the world’s most critical maritime corridors — carries a substantial share of global oil shipments. Any instability in this narrow passage rapidly reverberates across global energy markets.
Shipping companies reconsider routes. Maritime insurers raise war-risk premiums. Vessels hesitate before entering contested waters while naval deployments multiply across the region.
The result is predictable.
Fuel prices rise. Freight costs escalate. Insurance premiums surge. Deliveries slow.
And these costs inevitably pass through global supply chains.
For import-dependent economies, the chain reaction is swift and painful: higher energy bills, rising transport costs, increased food prices and growing economic uncertainty.
In other words, the geopolitical decisions of powerful states begin to manifest themselves in the daily lives of ordinary citizens thousands of kilometres away.
The Dangerous Illusion of Controlled Escalation
History offers a sobering warning about the belief that conflicts can be tightly managed once they begin.
Many of the actors that later became the focus of global security concerns were themselves products of earlier geopolitical strategies. Armed movements cultivated as proxies during past rivalries frequently evolved into forces that later turned against their original sponsors.
The record is instructive.
During the Cold War conflict in Afghanistan, militant networks were supported as instruments of geopolitical competition. From those same networks later emerged organisations such as Al-Qaeda, whose attacks reshaped global security in ways few policymakers had foreseen.
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was once viewed as a regional counterweight before becoming the target of devastating wars that destabilised an entire region.
Even individuals who later became symbols of international terrorism, including Osama bin Laden, initially operated within geopolitical contexts shaped by earlier strategic calculations.
The lesson is clear.
Geopolitical engineering often produces consequences that extend far beyond the intentions of those who initiate it.
Proxies do not always remain proxies. They evolve, fragment and pursue their own agendas. And when they do, instability can persist for decades.
A Crisis of Strategic Consistency
Equally troubling is the perception of growing inconsistency in international leadership, clearly adding to further confusion in an already volatile situation.
The oscillation of the American administration as to Iran’s nuclear status — obliteration and imminent acquisition — projects contradictions that inevitably raise questions about strategic clarity.
When policy signals shift so dramatically within short periods, allies struggle to interpret intentions while adversaries may miscalculate responses. In international security, ambiguity can sometimes serve diplomacy — but inconsistency rarely does.
At the same time, relations with traditional partners have been strained by economic pressure and rhetorical confrontation, further complicating the formation of a coherent international response to escalating crises.
Foreign policy, particularly when nuclear powers are involved, requires disciplined coordination between political leadership, military establishments and diplomatic institutions.
When that coordination appears fragile, the risks multiply.
The Indian Ocean: Where Distant Wars Become Immediate Realities
For the countries of the Indian Ocean, the widening conflict carries implications that are often underestimated.
The region lies directly along the maritime routes connecting the energy producers of the Gulf with the markets of Asia, Africa and Europe. Every escalation in the Persian Gulf therefore travels swiftly along these sea lanes into the wider Indian Ocean basin.
When tensions rise in the Strait of Hormuz, ships do not simply stop moving. Instead, they slow down, reroute, or anchor while awaiting security clearance; there is always a risk of attack or the sudden closure of critical passages. Consequently, freight rates rise. War-risk insurance premiums surge. Energy prices climb. Deliveries become irregular
For island economies such as Mauritius — dependent on imported fuel, food, manufactured goods and connectivity — these disruptions are not abstract geopolitical developments. They translate directly into the cost of living.
A tanker delayed in the Gulf means higher fuel prices at the pump.
Higher maritime insurance means more expensive imported goods.
Airspace disruptions mean fewer flights and pressure on tourism.
For Mauritius in particular, the implications are immediate and practical. Our economy remains deeply dependent on imported energy, maritime transport and international air connectivity. Any prolonged instability in the Gulf risks pushing up the cost of petroleum products, increasing shipping insurance and freight charges, and disrupting supply chains that bring essential goods to our shores. Tourism, a pillar of our economic activity, is equally vulnerable to rising airfares and uncertain travel conditions. What may appear on television screens as distant geopolitical manoeuvring therefore carries the potential to translate very quickly into higher prices, tighter supply of goods and renewed pressure on the cost of living for Mauritian families already navigating an uncertain global economy.
The geography that has long made the Indian Ocean a crossroads of commerce also makes it vulnerable to distant conflicts.
Small states, which have neither the power to influence great power confrontations nor the capacity to shield themselves from global economic shocks, often become the silent casualties of geopolitical rivalry.
The Imperative of Restraint
The widening confrontation in the Middle East therefore represents far more than a regional crisis. It is a reminder of how fragile the global systems that sustain prosperity — maritime trade, energy flows and financial stability — can become when diplomacy gives way to military escalation.
Conflicts between major powers rarely unfold according to the tidy scenarios imagined at their outset. They expand through miscalculation, retaliation and the unpredictable behaviour of regional actors. Once escalation begins, events often acquire their own momentum.
The world does not need further demonstrations of force.
It needs diplomacy.
It needs restraint.
And it needs renewed respect for international law.
For, in an interconnected world, the flames ignited in one region rarely remain there. They travel — through shipping lanes, energy markets, financial systems and food supply chains — until they reach the homes and livelihoods of people who had no part in lighting the match.
The tragedy of war is not only that it destroys nations. It is that it punishes the innocent far beyond the battlefield.
History will judge not only those who ignite wars, but also those who fail to prevent them when diplomacy was still possible.
Vijay Makhan
New Delhi, 6 March 2026
Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 6 March 2026
An Appeal
Dear Reader
65 years ago Mauritius Times was founded with a resolve to fight for justice and fairness and the advancement of the public good. It has never deviated from this principle no matter how daunting the challenges and how costly the price it has had to pay at different times of our history.
With print journalism struggling to keep afloat due to falling advertising revenues and the wide availability of free sources of information, it is crucially important for the Mauritius Times to survive and prosper. We can only continue doing it with the support of our readers.
The best way you can support our efforts is to take a subscription or by making a recurring donation through a Standing Order to our non-profit Foundation.
Thank you.
