America’s New Architecture of Power
Natural Resources, Strategic Networks, and the Place of Iran
in the Geoeconomic Rivalry with China and Russia
A Geopolitical and Geoeconomic Analysis Based on Natural Resource Value Data
1. Introduction: America’s Current Primacy and the Challenge of Its Durability
The United States is currently the most technologically advanced and powerful country in the world. The valuation of some private American companies exceeds the GDP of many nations, and the economy of individual U.S. states rivals that of independent countries. Yet this primacy will not last forever. History shows that financial and economic rankings shift over time, as demonstrated by China’s rise to the world’s second-largest economy and its explicit plans to overtake the United States.
This paper rests on a geoeconomic hypothesis: technological superiority alone does not guarantee permanent hegemony. Technology can be transferred, rivals can imitate, and capital eventually migrates toward new opportunities. What proves more durable is the sustained combination of natural resources, technology, capital, markets, human capital, and geography.
Within this framework, access to valuable resources and the management of their global distribution acquire special importance. Russia holds approximately $75 trillion in natural resources, the United States $45 trillion, and China $27 trillion. If China secures lasting access to Iran’s resources, the combined resource capacity of China and Iran would surpass that of the United States. Conversely, if the United States establishes durable strategic partnerships with countries such as Iran and Canada, the aggregate resources available to the American network would become far more difficult for China and Russia to offset. Resource management and global resource distribution therefore matter greatly for the preservation of American primacy.
2. Natural Resource Value of the World’s Top 10 Countries
According to the available data, the approximate natural resource values of the world’s top ten countries are as follows (figures in trillion U.S. dollars):
The combined resource value of these ten countries totals $312.5 trillion. The average value per country is approximately $31.2 trillion, and the median is $27.2 trillion.
3. From Resource Ownership to Strategic Power: A Four-Layer Model
Natural resources alone do not create wealth or power. Despite holding the highest natural resource value among the countries examined, Russia has not become the world’s leading economy. The relationship between resources and power is therefore more complex than a simple linear equation.
Strategic power can be expressed conceptually as follows:
Strategic Power = Resource Base × Access × Conversion Efficiency × Capital × Technology × Human Capital × Markets × Geography
This relationship can be examined through four analytical layers:
Layer 1: Resource Endowment
The dollar value of oil, gas, minerals, strategic metals, and other natural resources located within a country’s territory.
Layer 2: Strategic Access
Formal ownership of resources matters, yet durable access, long-term contracts, control of export routes, investment, and integration into supply chains can matter even more. A power may not own a mine or oil field outright, but through investment, infrastructure construction, long-term purchasing agreements, and control of transport corridors it can effectively extract economic power from that resource.
Layer 3: Conversion Capability
The ability to transform raw resources into products, technology, services, and value-added output. This layer encompasses technology, capital, effective institutions, skilled human capital, and access to large markets.
Layer 4: Global Power
The conversion of economic value into military, financial, political power, and geopolitical influence. It is at this layer that a country’s position in the international system is formed or sustained.
4. Comparing Resource Blocs: America versus China and Russia
On the basis of the data used here, the following conceptual combinations are revealing:
Even before incorporating the technology multipliers of the United States and Israel, the United States–Canada–Iran combination exceeds the combined resource value of Russia and China. This comparison rests solely on the figures provided and should not be treated as independent verification of the valuations. Nevertheless, it illustrates the underlying logic clearly.
The real value of such combinations is not limited to the arithmetic sum of the numbers. The United States, Canada, and Iran form relatively complementary sets:
United States
• Advanced technology, vast capital, global financial system, multinational corporations, research and development, military power, and managerial capacity
Canada
• Energy, minerals, uranium, metals, land, water, political stability, and geographic proximity to the United States — Canada functions as a strategic resource multiplier for America
Iran
• Oil and gas, copper, iron ore, zinc, chromium, manganese, coal, uranium, strategic minerals, industrial capacity, human capital, a substantial domestic market, and a unique geographic position
5. Iran as a Pivot State and Its Importance in Rimland and Heartland Geopolitics
Iran should not be compared with Saudi Arabia solely through the lens of energy resources. Saudi Arabia can function as an energy powerhouse, whereas Iran has the potential to serve as an integrated resource–industrial–geopolitical platform. From the standpoint of classical geopolitics (Mackinder’s Heartland and Spykman’s Rimland), Iran’s location is significantly more valuable to the United States than that of Saudi Arabia.
Get Aram Rahimi’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Iran sits at the intersection of several strategic domains: the Persian Gulf, the Sea of Oman and the Indian Ocean, Central Asia, the Caucasus, Iraq, and Turkey. It possesses dual maritime access (Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman). This position places Iran among the few Rimland states that simultaneously offer access to the Eurasian Heartland and global sea lanes. Control or integration of Iran into the American power network would give Washington not only resources but also a substantial geographic option value that Saudi Arabia lacks.
Iran’s potential attributes in this framework include:
• Diversified hydrocarbon resources (oil and gas)
• A relatively broad portfolio of strategic minerals
• An existing industrial base
• Significant human capital
• A domestic market of approximately 95 million people
• Geographic connectivity linking the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, Central Asia, Caucasus, Turkey, and potential routes toward Europe
• Dual maritime access
• Capacity for North–South and East–West corridors
If China were able to link Iran’s resources, market, infrastructure, and geography to its own economy, the issue for Washington would no longer remain a bilateral dispute with Iran. It would escalate into a great-power contest on a Eurasian scale. The conceptual formula of the rivalry would then become:
China × Iranian Resources × Chinese Industrial Capacity versus United States × Iranian Resources × American Technology & Capital × Israeli Advanced Technology
6. Redefining the ‘Useful Ally’ and the Limits of Traditional Allies
The United States is not necessarily discarding its traditional allies. Rather, it appears to be changing the definition of what constitutes a useful ally. For a hegemonic power, the value of an ally is not limited to formal membership in the American camp. An ally acquires strategic value when it can generate real capacity in the service of American objectives — security and military power, capital and technology, control of trade and energy routes, intelligence, regional access, political legitimacy, the ability to bear the costs of American policy, and, most importantly, long-term alignment of interests.
From this perspective, the United States may gradually be shifting from a network of traditional allies toward a network of partners possessing specific strategic capabilities. This distinction is fundamental. The central question is no longer simply “Is this country an American ally?” but rather “What capacity does this country possess to advance American interests, and how far do its long-term interests align with those of the United States?”
6.1 Britain: Hidden Conflicts of Interest and Strategic Competition
Britain remains one of America’s most important partners in military, intelligence, nuclear, financial, and diplomatic domains. Nevertheless, British strategic interests are not aligned with American interests across all areas. Britain is a medium-sized but highly complex power with independent stakes in the City of London, Europe, the Middle East, energy, shipping, insurance, trade, the Commonwealth, and historical intelligence networks.
Evidence indicates that Britain does not always cooperate fully and may, in certain cases, provide covert support to governments or currents that conflict with American objectives. A clear illustration appeared during the Strait of Hormuz crisis: the United States removed tanker insurance from the British monopoly. Closure of the Strait of Hormuz imposes costs on Europe (and on Britain as part of the European economy and maritime insurance market) while working to America’s advantage, given its lower dependence on free oil transit through Hormuz and its position as a major energy producer and supplier.
Britain should therefore be understood not as an unconditional ally but as a partner with growing strategic autonomy and, in some domains, competing interests with the United States.
6.2 Saudi Arabia: Two Structural Problems with the United States
Saudi Arabia remains important to the United States in terms of security, capital, energy, and defense relations. Its difficulties with Washington, however, run deeper than ordinary strategic autonomy and rest on two principal foundations:
• Enduring and inseparable American support for Israel: Saudi society and elites, like those of most regional states, harbor deep hostility toward Israel. Because the United States and Israel are effectively inseparable in Washington’s security architecture, this factor constitutes a structural obstacle to genuine alignment.
• Fear of a revived Iran allied with the United States: If the United States, following a change in Iran’s political structure, were to establish a strategic partnership with Iran comparable to the pre-1979 relationship, Saudi Arabia would see its own position substantially weakened. Iran possesses greater advantages in population, geography, industrial capacity, diversified resources, human capital, and maritime access. Saudi Arabia therefore prefers that Iran remain weak, under sanctions, and in conflict with the United States so that Riyadh can continue to function as the principal Arab power of interest to Washington in the Persian Gulf.
In this model, Saudi Arabia is a useful partner but not a substitute for Iran. Its cooperation with the United States operates more at the elite level and serves shorter-term interests than deep, long-term alignment.
6.3 The State–Society Gap and Hostility toward Israel in the Middle East
Two key points emerge in evaluating America’s regional partners:
• With the partial exception of Iran, populations across most Middle Eastern countries are predominantly anti-American. The rulers themselves emerge from these same societies and lack deep emotional attachment to the West.
• Hostility toward Israel is strong both at the societal level and among substantial portions of the elites. Because the United States and Israel are inseparable in Washington’s Middle East policy, this hostility ranks among the most significant obstacles to genuine alignment with America.
What is observed in many of America’s formal allies is therefore strategic cooperation without social or cultural alignment. Such alliances are vulnerable over the long term, remaining dependent on regime stability, elite continuity, and the absence of internal crises.
In Iran the situation is, to a large degree, reversed: the government maintains strategic enmity toward the United States, while huge segments of society display positive interest or at least curiosity toward the West. This gap creates a potentially different geopolitical capacity that is less evident among traditional regional allies.
7. The Potential Combination of the United States, Canada, Iran, and Israel
If a new Iran were to establish a strategic relationship with the United States, the relevant combination would not be limited to “Iran + America.” It could expand into:
Iranian resources and human capital + Canadian resources + American capital and technology + Israeli advanced technology + global markets
In this model Israel is not a “resource”; it functions as a technology multiplier. Israeli advantages lie in cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, defense technology, water technology, advanced agriculture, medical technology, intelligence systems, drones, and biotechnology. Iran offers complementary strengths in energy, petrochemicals, steel, copper, human capital, engineering, and geographic position. The United States supplies capital, foundational technology, capital markets, universities, research and development, and a global network of partners.
The potential result is a complementary power system rather than a purely military alliance. Such a combination could convert resources into value-added output and generate economic and geopolitical power that would be difficult for China and Russia to offset.
8. Conclusion: From Alliance-Based Hegemony to Capability-Based Hegemony
The central hypothesis of this analysis may be summarized as follows:
To preserve its global primacy in the twenty-first century, the United States requires a redesign of its power network. In this redesign, allies are no longer selected solely on the basis of political loyalty; they are evaluated according to their capacity to generate power and wealth and the long-term alignment of their interests. An Iran integrated into the global economy — by virtue of its superior geopolitical position (Rimland–Heartland), resource diversity, and distinctive state–society configuration — could function as a strategic multiplier for American power. The core question is not how the war between the United States and the Islamic Republic will unfold, or even how bilateral relations will evolve; it is who will control and integrate Iran’s capacity within the architecture of twenty-first-century power.
The United States may be moving from an alliance-based model of hegemony toward a capability-based model. In the latter, the American power network comprises countries able simultaneously to supply security, capital, technology, resources, markets, human capital, geography, and political alignment.
The real rivalry of the twenty-first century is the contest between the American strategic network and the Chinese strategic network. Russia, despite the exceptional value of its resources, may ultimately function less as the architect of an independent network of comparable weight and more as one of the principal arenas in which the two networks compete.
The larger question this analysis raises — and one that merits independent, in-depth examination — is whether the United States is preparing a new architecture for the Middle East in which Iran, following a change in political structure, could replace some of the capacities that America can no longer reliably obtain through traditional allies such as Saudi Arabia and, in certain domains, even Britain. Answering this question requires more rigorous quantitative modeling, scenario comparison, and broader data on energy, industry, demography, technology, and trade corridors.
