It was in 7CE that the ancient Indian game Chaturanga spread to the Sassanid Persian Empire. It was renamed Shatranj. The Persian word Shah Mat (the king is helpless) was adopted into Old French as Eschec Mat and eventually became the English word ‘checkmate’. This signals the end of the game.
Zbigniew Brzezinski is recognised as the patriarch of modern US geopolitical strategy. He asserts in his book ‘The Grand Chessboard’ that global primacy depended on controlling the “center of the chessboard”. Building on Halford Mackinder’s ‘Heartland Theory’, he defined it as Eurasia. He termed Iran and Turkey as “pivot states” – strategic gateways linking the West, the Middle East and Central Asia and the broader balance of global power.
This was the time when the US imagined itself as the grandmaster of the global board. US President Donald Trump, with his penchant for golf, presents a different pattern. It is less chess, more golf; less strategy, more spectacle. The distinction is not trivial. Chess demands patience, discipline and a tolerance for incremental gains. Golf, more so in the Trumpian form, invokes the opposite impulse. It is the obsession with the hole-in-one, the elusive ace, where the ball is driven straight from the tee into the cup in a single stroke.
Taking this logic to heart, agreements have been abandoned with theatrical flourish. Sanctions and tariffs are wielded as blunt instruments. Military actions are cast as decisive strokes meant to reset entire regions in a single motion. The intent is dominance and the illusion of control. Yet, by the logic of the game itself, power lies less in the force of the swing than in reading the terrain, choosing the right club and knowing when restraint matters more than reach.
Nowhere has this been more evident than in the confrontation with Iran. The logic of escalation was cultivated and heavily influenced by Benjamin Netanyahu’s priorities. For years, he has cast Iran as an existential threat, reshaping the terms of debate in Washington. What began as alignment has increasingly taken on the appearance of deference. The overarching perception is that American policy is being steered by Israel.
This perception matters. Allies wonder whose interests are truly driving decisions. The political fallout has seen Europe taking pains to distance itself from Trump’s decisions. The strikes on Iran were framed as a security imperative. In a more just world, the likes of this fallacious tale should have been done and dusted with after the destruction of Iraq on concocted evidence.
Iran, shaped by centuries of statecraft and decades of withstanding pressure, was not a ball waiting to be driven. Its investments in education, healthcare and scientific development, especially for women, have forged a battle-tested and resilient social fabric. Unsurprisingly, its response was measured, asymmetrical and rooted in endurance. This is where the analogy to chess becomes unavoidable. In the years that Washington was swinging, Iran was positioning.
Against this backdrop, the American approach begins to look not only impulsive but also draining. The Iran misadventure, less a single event than a pattern of escalations without a clear endgame strategy, may prove to be decisive in altering the balance of power.
The golfing metaphor extends uncomfortably far. After the initial drive comes the realisation that the ball has landed in the sand trap. A difficult position, recovery demands finesse rather than force. However, it is slow, uncertain and dependent on conditions the player no longer fully controls. He seeks the caddie’s advice on club choice and shot strategy.
In geopolitical terms, Washington’s predicament has forced it to scramble for support. Wary European partners are increasingly reluctant. Regional actors, acutely aware of the costs, are in the same frame of mind. The result is a significant shift. The US, once the unquestioned enforcer of coalitions, is – despite its theatrical flourishes – now a deterrent for partners.
Meanwhile, China and Russia, and for that matter Iran too, observe, adapt and wait. They do not need to outmatch America’s frenzied moves directly. They only need to outlast its missteps. Every impulsive action, every poorly calculated escalation is an opportunity. It is another square gained in that game of patience.
Washington’s political theatre is increasingly driven by immediacy. It demands submission and applause. Defiance is treated as a transgression with consequences. The US has always seen itself not merely as powerful but as the uniquely self-appointed architect of the global order. The realisation that others now play a game of positional endurance is an affront; a rebuke to Washington’s collective narcissism.
Iran, paradoxically, highlights this reality. Its endurance is not accidental. It is rooted in historical memory, institutional continuity and a capacity to absorb pressure without collapsing. Attempts to coerce it into submission have repeatedly produced the opposite effect. It has reinforced internal cohesion and external adaptability.
Washington’s obsession with the ace has led it into positions where recovery is harder than the initial foray. The top military leadership ceding their positions reflects the internal turmoil.
If the Iran episode marks a tipping point, it is not because it ends American influence but because it has laid bare its vulnerabilities. Allies are now recalibrating and adversaries are feeling far more emboldened. The board is now becoming more crowded, more contested and far less manageable.
The question now is whether Washington can move from the allure of the ace to the discipline of positional play. In the end, the global order is not decided by reckless swings but by the quiet accumulation of calculated advantages.
Those who see a chessboard, not a fairway, are already shaping the outcome. In this new reality, the otherwise near-impossible ace is foreclosed. What remains is Shah Mat of a game won not by force but by positioning so precise that the board itself permits no alternative outcome.
The writer explores the forces which shape power, belief and society. He can be reached at: [email protected]
