This Isn’t About Iran, It’s About Who Controls the Flow of Power

Read time: 8 - 10 minutes
​By Caleb Minson, The Suburban Country Boy™

Most observers interpret global events in isolation. A conflict emerges, a policy shifts, a headline dominates for a cycle, and then attention moves on. This mode of analysis produces fragmented understanding. When the same events are examined in aggregate, however, a different picture begins to take shape, one defined less by discrete incidents and more by structural alignment. Iran, Venezuela, Greenland, and the Panama Canal are typically treated as unrelated subjects. Viewed together, they function more accurately as interconnected nodes within a larger system. What links them is not ideology, but movement. Most people focus on countries. The real leverage comes from routes.

What Actually Matters Now
Contemporary power is not reducible to territory or military capacity alone. It is increasingly determined by control over energy production, energy pricing, energy movement, and the routes through which goods and resources circulate. Over the past year, pressure has intensified across each of these dimensions. Tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz have affected expectations of oil flow and pricing. Shipping route volatility has increased costs and risk across global supply chains. At the same time, the gradual opening of Arctic routes due to ice melt has drawn sustained attention from major powers. These developments are not random. They reflect stress points in a system where control of movement is becoming as important as control of supply.

Energy Is Not Just Physical
Energy is often understood in purely physical terms, as a matter of extraction and reserves. In practice, it is also governed by financial and institutional layers that determine whether and how it can be moved. Financing structures, maritime insurance markets, and pricing mechanisms play a decisive role. For decades, significant portions of this control have been concentrated within European financial systems, particularly those linked to London. This arrangement allows influence to be exercised without direct ownership of resources. Control over risk, capital, and pricing can shape outcomes as effectively as control over production. For example, maritime insurance markets can determine whether ships are willing or able to pass through certain regions. If insurance costs spike or coverage is withdrawn, routes can become economically nonviable regardless of physical accessibility.

Look at the Actions Together
Public justifications for the current conflict with Iran vary across time and audience. This variability is not unusual. What is more analytically useful is the alignment of actions occurring alongside it. Over a similar period, the United States has re-engaged with Venezuela’s oil sector following partial sanctions adjustments, moved toward improved relations within the Caribbean including renewed diplomatic signaling toward Cuba, revisited strategic interest in Greenland tied to Arctic shipping lanes and resource access, and raised concerns about influence over the Panama Canal amid increasing foreign investment and control debates. These developments coincide with direct military action in Iran. Each action can be explained independently. Taken together, they suggest directional consistency.

It’s About Routes
Earlier in my career, I participated in submarine operations in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden focused on mapping the ocean floor to identify alternative shipping routes. That work is resource-intensive and long-term by design, undertaken because small adjustments in routes can produce disproportionate strategic effects. Changes in route efficiency alter cost structures, transit times, and exposure to risk. In the present environment, route volatility is already increasing costs and revealing systemic fragility. The central point follows: power is not only a function of resource ownership, but of control over how those resources move.

The Financial Layer Is Shifting
A growing body of analysis argues that energy markets have long been shaped by financial systems as much as by physical supply. Insurance coverage for shipping, access to global banking networks, and sanctions regimes all condition the viability of energy transactions. Recent developments indicate that elements of this system are being bypassed or reconfigured, including the emergence of alternative payment mechanisms, energy agreements that circumvent traditional European intermediaries, and negotiations occurring outside established channels. While intent cannot be verified externally, the observable pattern suggests structural change.

What This Looks Like
Direct access to policy deliberation is limited, but outcomes are observable. The current set of actions does not resemble a sequence of unrelated decisions. It resembles positioning across multiple domains: securing energy capacity within the Western Hemisphere, reducing external influence near U.S. borders, applying pressure to major energy chokepoints, and increasing attention to critical global routes. The posture is pragmatic in execution, even if its broader implications carry ideological weight.

Energy and AI
An additional layer is often overlooked. The global competition surrounding artificial intelligence is constrained not only by computational capability but by energy availability. Large-scale AI systems require continuous, high-density electricity, stable supply, and predictable pricing. As demand increases, energy becomes a limiting factor. Control over energy systems therefore translates into advantage within technological competition. If energy supply becomes unstable or constrained, the infrastructure required to train and operate large-scale AI systems becomes unreliable. That ties energy routes and stability directly to technological dominance. This reframes the significance of energy beyond traditional industrial considerations.

The Hemisphere Problem
Geography imposes persistent constraints. If the United States does not shape conditions within its own hemisphere, other powers will. External influence in Latin America and the Caribbean has expanded in recent years, particularly through economic and infrastructure initiatives. When multiple powers operate in close proximity, competing incentives and instability increase. Consolidation of influence within the hemisphere can therefore be interpreted as a risk-reduction strategy, regardless of whether it is framed as expansion or containment.

This Is Not New
The underlying logic has historical precedent. The Monroe Doctrine established a principle of limiting external influence in the Western Hemisphere. The post–World War II order extended U.S. influence through financial architecture, secured trade routes, and stabilized energy flows. During the Cold War, the guiding principle was to prevent adversarial consolidation in key regions. The behavior across these periods is consistent. What has changed is the domain of competition. Control now operates through infrastructure, energy systems, financial networks, and technological capacity rather than territory alone.

America First vs America Only
Public discourse often conflates “America First” with “America Only,” though they represent distinct strategic postures. The former implies prioritization of national advantage within global systems; the latter implies withdrawal from those systems. In an interconnected environment, full isolation is difficult to sustain. Disengagement does not eliminate pressure; it redistributes it to competing actors. The current set of actions can therefore be interpreted as selective engagement in areas deemed structurally important.

Make America Great Again
The phrase is frequently interpreted as a purely domestic objective. Historically, however, U.S. strength has depended on its position within global systems, including trade, military reach, energy security, and financial influence. If these external factors degrade, internal stability becomes more difficult to maintain. The central question is therefore whether domestic strength can be preserved without shaping the external systems on which it depends.

What This Is
This analysis does not claim access to internal decision-making or the existence of a singular, unified plan. It is an exercise in pattern recognition. When multiple actions across regions produce a consistent strategic effect, they warrant examination as a system rather than as isolated events.

The Part Most People Miss
​Public attention tends to focus on countries. The more decisive factors are often corridors: where energy moves, how goods travel, and who controls the pathways. Control over energy and the routes through which it flows confers the ability to shape outcomes at scale. That appears to be the direction of current developments. Whether that positioning holds over time remains an open question.