Speaking to The Cradle, Cem Gurdeniz says Washington’s war on Iran has exposed the limits of US power, accelerated the decline of the petrodollar system, and pushed the world toward a systemic rupture.
The Cradle
The war launched by the US and Israel against Iran on 28 February has triggered a major political and economic crisis. The aggressors failed to secure a quick victory, and for the past 40 days, a “fragile ceasefire” has prevailed. The world is now trying to understand Iran’s moves in the Strait of Hormuz and where US President Donald Trump's administration’s blockade is leading.
Regional states face enormous uncertainty if a negotiated solution is not reached. Once again, US and western attention has turned to Turkiye, alongside Iran, as one of the region’s most critical countries. As a NATO ally, Turkiye’s efforts to develop its defense industry are welcomed, and discussions are underway about establishing a NATO command at Incirlik base in Adana.
As Ankara prepares to host the NATO summit on 7–8 July, it avoids directly criticizing the Trump administration as the aggressor, instead focusing its rhetoric on Israel. At the same time, it attempts a balancing act – leaning toward the west while calling for the war to end as soon as possible.
Within Turkiye, however, public opinion openly criticizes US and Israeli aggression, and distrust toward the west is deepening further.
In this wide-ranging interview, Gurdeniz dissects Washington’s blockade strategy, Iran’s resistance, the unraveling of US naval supremacy, and the broader systemic crisis engulfing the Atlanticist order.
The Cradle: After 40 days of war, the Trump administration has shifted from threats of “destroying a civilization” to a fragile ceasefire and now a blockade strategy. What is Washington trying to achieve?
Gurdeniz: Trump speaks in contradictions. One moment, he says, “If they don’t accept, we will destroy them,” the next, “We will make a great deal.” It’s a stream of contradictory statements.
Meanwhile, the US has three aircraft carriers in the region: the USS Gerald R. Ford has re-entered the Red Sea, the USS George H. W. Bush is moving from the Cape of Good Hope toward the Arabian Sea, and the USS Abraham Lincoln is positioned in the Arabian Sea outside Iran’s missile range. In addition, B-52 and B-1B bombers have intensified their flights over the Eastern Mediterranean–Gulf corridor with heavy tanker support.
Against this backdrop, Trump’s move toward an “indefinite ceasefire” is striking.
The blockade decision is shaped not only by Iran maintaining the initiative and refusing negotiations, but also by military, economic, and political constraints.
Iran is already prepared for war. By keeping the Strait of Hormuz card open, it aims to push back US presence in the Gulf, force Israel into ceasefires on surrounding fronts – especially Lebanon – and establish a long-term balance that prevents future threats. Iran understands that every concession to the US or Israel returns later as greater military pressure.
At the same time, Washington faces serious constraints. Despite claims by Donald Trump that stockpiles have been replenished, open sources indicate that precision munitions such as JASSMs, Tomahawks, and SM-3s are under significant strain, with limited ability to quickly restore capacity. Even recent operational setbacks, including a costly air rescue mission involving multiple aircraft for one pilot, have drawn domestic criticism.
Trump needs a success narrative – but there is none. Claims of “20,000 targets hit” contrast with a far less decisive reality. Instead, symbolic actions are highlighted, such as the USS Spruance intercepting a container ship after prolonged pursuit, presented more as spectacle than strategy.
However, these measures lack strategic effect. A blockade over such a vast maritime space cannot be decisive, and imposing it during a ceasefire is inherently contradictory, undermining de-escalation.
As long as the blockade continues and the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, the crisis will expand beyond the region, turning energy disruption into systemic global pressure.
The Cradle: How should Iran’s moves in the Strait of Hormuz be understood?
Gurdeniz: In wartime, no country allows its strategic straits to be freely used by its adversaries. Iran is effectively implementing controlled passage – it allows some ships through and blocks others. This resembles a blockade, but it is fundamentally wartime regulation of a strait.
The US blockade is driven by a deeper concern: Iran’s trade with China in yuan and local currencies. This undermines US naval dominance – not just economically, but psychologically.
For decades, the US saw itself as ruler of the seas. Now, that dominance is being challenged.
Historically, similar situations have occurred. During World War I, Britain controlled Gibraltar and denied access to enemy ships. Napoleon attempted to blockade British trade but failed, partly because Russia broke ranks.
Today, Trump is effectively saying: if China benefits, then we will stop it – even if it means mutual damage.
The Cradle: Is this primarily a message to Beijing?
Gurdeniz: Absolutely. Since 2018, the US has viewed China as its primary rival. China’s strength comes from production, not finance, and it is rapidly surpassing the US in multiple sectors.
The operations in Venezuela and Iran were meant to signal that the US still controls global energy flows. Since 1973, it has maintained dominance through naval power and the petrodollar system.
China disrupted that system.
Even middle powers now have access to advanced military technologies, eroding US superiority.
This move is not just about cutting China’s energy supply – that is unrealistic – but about reasserting dominance. A quick victory in Iran would have reinforced control over global energy and deterred countries from trading outside the dollar.
But that plan failed. Iran did not back down. To stabilize markets, Iranian oil exports were still allowed, much of which ultimately reached China, further weakening the effectiveness of pressure.
Meanwhile, messaging toward China has intensified, alongside claims of Iranian–Chinese military cooperation, raising the risk of escalation into a wider strategic confrontation.
The Cradle: What are the broader consequences of this blockade?
Gurdeniz: Iran has used the Strait of Hormuz more effectively than a nuclear weapon. Closing it creates a far greater global impact.
If this crisis continues, the economic consequences will escalate rapidly. June is a critical threshold. If no resolution is found, the global economy could enter a severe recession. In a more extreme scenario, the petrodollar system itself could begin to collapse.
Trust in US security guarantees is increasingly eroding among Gulf states, as the crisis exposes the limits of Washington’s ability to guarantee stability in key maritime and energy corridors. This is likely to accelerate diversification efforts and the search for new regional and global alignments beyond exclusive reliance on the US.
We are witnessing a broader geopolitical rupture. Iran, despite sustaining heavy damage, retains strategic initiative through its leverage over critical energy routes such as the Strait of Hormuz, turning geographic chokepoints into strategic tools. The US responds through military buildup and pressure, but its ability to sustain escalation indefinitely is structurally constrained by economic, logistical, and political limits.
If the conflict expands further, the Bab al-Mandab Strait could also become part of the escalation cycle, widening the disruption across global trade and energy flows. In such a scenario, the perception of the US and Israel as primary drivers of systemic instability would intensify, contributing to a longer-term acceleration in the erosion of US-led global hegemony.
The Cradle: What does this crisis reveal about US military power?
Gurdeniz: It reveals its limits.
Even US Admiral James Stavridis admitted that enforcing such a blockade would be extremely difficult and exhausting.
The US Navy is facing serious structural problems. Fleet numbers have declined significantly. Shipbuilding capacity lags far behind China. Many systems are outdated.
In simulations, the US Navy suffers heavy losses within the first days of a major conflict.
Iran, meanwhile, maintains control over the Strait of Hormuz – and that reality is unlikely to change.
The Cradle: What can Washington realistically gain from this strategy?
Gurdeniz: Very little. It will disrupt global supply chains – oil, fertilizers, helium, and more. It will also cut off essential medical and life-sustaining imports and exports to Iran and the Gulf countries, causing much greater suffering among populations. Of course, the Iranian people will suffer the most, but in the end, the final word will again belong to the Iranian people – their resilience and endurance will determine the outcome.
The Cradle: Can Iran trust negotiations under these conditions?
Gurdeniz: Trump himself withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal during the [former US President Barack] Obama administration in 2018, effectively tearing up the multilateral agreement. At the same time, there are even reports – such as those published by the Washington Post – that while negotiations were ongoing in Islamabad, Israel could carry out an assassination attempt against the Iranian delegation. This undermines the very foundation of diplomacy and negotiations, which are as old as human history itself. In such a context, even the concept of a white flag loses its meaning.
The Cradle: How should we understand the Israel factor in this war and in US policy?
Gurdeniz: From the beginning, my view is that this war serves Israel’s interests. Netanyahu is effectively shaping US policy, while Trump’s inner circle includes neoconservative and Zionist influences. US Ambassador Mike Huckabee reinforces a religious narrative of divinely “chosen” land, aimed at evangelical audiences in the US.
At the same time, US officials justify escalation as “stabilization through tension,” even while discussing actions that would destroy civilian infrastructure in Iran. This exposes a contradiction between rhetoric and reality, including the dismissal of war-crime concerns. Overall, US decisions are contributing to global instability, and even historical references such as Vietnam are used to support ideas of “quick victory,” despite their disconnect from reality.
The Cradle: How do you assess Iran’s position?
Gurdeniz: In essence, Iran’s resistance is all of our resistance. It is the resistance of all honorable nations. In my view, it is a great nation standing up to the groups of financial capital – armed with sticks and their pockets stuffed with money – who have no regard for humanity and worship nothing but money. The Iranian people are fighting tooth and nail against this shameless, ruthless mafia.
The Cradle: Trump’s administration is accused of politicizing religion, while calling Iran a “theocracy” and facing clashes with Pope Leo XIV. How should this use of religion be understood?
Gurdeniz: The Trump administration’s use of religion is highly visible and political. While Iran is labeled a “theocracy,” senior US officials openly use religious language and symbolic prayer-like acts, reflecting an unusual level of religious rhetoric in state affairs.
The dispute with the Pope began after he called the war unjust. However, the conflict is not purely religious, as the Vatican is closely tied to global financial and political structures and historically aligns with dominant power centers.
Overall, the issue reflects overlapping political and financial interests rather than a theological divide, with broader western financial hubs continuing to shape global alignments behind the scenes.
The Cradle: The US's most important ally is Britain. How do you interpret the Starmer government staying out of the conflict?
Gurdeniz: Earlier this year, the US Navy boarded a Russian tanker in international waters near the UK, without a meaningful Russian response. Later, plans were made to escort and inspect civilian tankers described as part of a “shadow fleet,” and Britain announced it would board Russian vessels passing through the English Channel – despite this being international waters.
In response, Russia escorted two of these tankers through the Channel with a frigate from its navy, while Britain was unable to intervene. This reflects the current limits of British naval capability.
In parallel, HMS Dragon was deployed to Cyprus for protection duties but had to withdraw shortly after due to a technical failure. Compared to its post–World War II naval strength of over a thousand ships, Britain today operates a much smaller fleet with limited frontline capacity. In practical terms, even under US pressure, Britain’s ability to act independently is significantly constrained.
The Cradle: How should we interpret European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declaring Turkiye, along with Russia and China, as adversaries under the theme of “completing Europe”?
Gurdeniz: Von der Leyen is an appointed, not elected, official. In Europe, appointed figures are often examined through their links to financial capital and broader ideological networks. Her remarks also reflect a political framing of adversaries rather than a strategic reality.
Europe currently faces deep structural constraints, especially in energy security. Its supply chains are already fragile, and further disruptions – such as in key maritime chokepoints – would worsen the situation. Dependence on external liquefied natural gas (LNG) and disrupted Russian energy routes have already exposed this vulnerability.
Despite this, the rhetoric of permanent confrontation with Russia continues without a clear material basis. European states face demographic decline, aging populations, and limited military capacity, making large-scale strategic autonomy difficult in practice.
In this context, such statements are seen as politically driven rather than grounded in capability. They also contrast with the reality of Europe’s dependence on external energy and logistics, raising questions about the coherence between its strategic ambitions and actual capacity.
The Cradle: What should Turkiye do in this environment?
Gurdeniz: There are voices saying, “Turkiye should align itself with the EU.” However, the Republic of Turkiye, with its geography and hardworking population, has the potential to make far greater breakthroughs. What matters is the emergence of a conductor for this orchestra. I am among those who believe that such a conductor and such an order will inevitably emerge. The Republic of TurkIye is not aware of its own power. It is not aware of the strength of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s legacy. Fortunately, there is also a very large segment of society that is aware of this.
The Cradle: Are we moving toward a wider global war?
Gurdeniz: The Third World War is, in fact, already ongoing in a low-intensity and hybrid form. The reason we call it a “world war” is that world wars change the global order. And right now, the order is changing. The war in Ukraine is one front. Iran is another front. It does not necessarily have to resemble 1939–45, because the world is different now.
Why is it different? After the US abandoned Bretton Woods in 1970 and shifted to a system where the dollar became the reserve currency tied to oil, the neoliberal model made the world extremely interdependent. Now, as the system’s gears are turning, such crises shock the entire world. Naturally, it also affects the hegemonic power. Therefore, the US is in a state of great panic.
There is 40 trillion dollars of debt. It is dependent on a financial capital system influenced by Zionist networks. On one side, there are Israel’s demands, on the other, globalists and financial capital, and on the other side, the MAGA movement represented by Trump.
Saying “we made a plan – Venezuela will be handled, Iran will be handled, China will be contained, wars will be triggered in Belt and Road regions” is not enough. The plan is not going as they intended.
The Cradle: Where does this crisis lead?
Gurdeniz: The war appears likely to continue, though its prolongation is also increasingly costly for the US. Iran, in this assessment, is not expected to surrender or enter negotiations under pressure.
Iran’s position is shaped by a long historical experience of external intervention, particularly the 1953 coup against Mossadegh and the period of strong western control over the Shah until 1979. This legacy reinforces a deep societal resistance to imposed political outcomes, even alongside internal political differences.
Despite internal divisions, there is a shared perception that Iran is facing external pressure aimed at reshaping its system, which reinforces domestic resilience. Unlike typical wartime patterns of mass displacement, the observed return of some citizens is interpreted as a sign of strong state continuity and societal attachment to national structure and historical identity.
The Cradle: What should be expected if this situation drags on?
Gurdeniz: If it continues until the end of June, the world could face a crisis similar to the one in 1929. The US-imposed petrodollar system may collapse. The US no longer produces consent or security, but fear and coercion, generating growing global resentment. Because of Israel, the US is also losing influence.
Iran is under pressure, and its people are suffering, but they are asking whether they will remain under permanent threat or end it to secure a more stable future.
At the same time, amid the war in Palestine, only Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah, and Yemen's Ansarallah have taken an active stance, while Sunni states and others have largely limited themselves to statements and humanitarian aid.
In this context, sectarian distinctions such as Shia and Sunni become less relevant. The key divide is between supporting the oppressed or the powerful, and between national interests or alignment with the US, EU, and NATO.
Mustafa Kemal’s Six Arrows are recalled as an alternative framework, while contemporary western neoliberalism is criticized for prioritizing individualism over society and producing deep inequality, in contrast to models like China’s collective approach.
The Cradle: What does this mean for NATO?
Gurdeniz:
NATO’s internal fragmentation is no longer an exception but a structural reality. The alliance has evolved from a unified military bloc into a loose security framework of 32 states with diverging priorities. Since the Russia–Ukraine war, clear divisions have deepened across Europe and between Europe and the US, as members increasingly pursue their own national interests amid perceived US retrenchment.
This has intensified political and strategic divergence among key actors, weakening NATO cohesion. At the same time, the US's capacity to rapidly and sustainably reinforce Europe has declined compared to the Cold War period, pushing Europe to gradually develop its own defense capabilities, while Russia’s military-industrial capacity adds further pressure.
In this context, NATO’s future is shaped by a structural dilemma: greater European autonomy or continued dependence on a less globally engaged US.
Article 5, meanwhile, does not guarantee automatic military intervention. It requires full consensus, and any response is decided individually by each member state “as it deems necessary.” It is therefore not an automatic war trigger, but a flexible political consultation and response framework.
Editor’s note: This article is an excerpt from a longer interview published in full on The Cradle Türkiye website.
No comments:
Post a Comment