A thoughtful reader of my recent article (April 7, 2026, P-4, FE) raised a pertinent question: Is "geopoliticonomy" meant to be a formal model, or is it simply a descriptive expression? The question is important-not because it challenges the validity of the term, but because it exposes a deeper issue in how we understand the modern global order.
In the conventional teaching of economics, boundaries are drawn with precision. Economics is treated as the domain of markets, prices, and efficiency. Politics belongs to governance and statecraft. Power is reserved for international relations. These neat separations serve pedagogical clarity-but they fail to describe how the world actually works.
Nations do not operate within disciplinary silos. Trade agreements are not purely economic instruments; they are tools of influence. Sanctions are not merely financial measures; they are extensions of political coercion. Strategic alliances are not just about security; they reshape trade flows, investment patterns, and technological diffusion. What emerges is not a set of parallel systems, but a single, intertwined architecture. It is this reality that the term geopoliticonomy seeks to capture.
Geopoliticonomy is not a formal model, nor does it pretend to be one. It is an analytical lens-a portmanteau that captures the inseparability of economics, geopolitics, and the pursuit of global power, often exercised through coercion and extraction. It does not seek to replace established theories; it exposes their blind spots when treated in isolation. By naming this entanglement, we bring into focus patterns of behaviour that otherwise appear fragmented, inconsistent, and deceptively contradictory.
A useful way to grasp this idea is through an analogy drawn from physics: entanglement. In quantum mechanics, two particles once linked continue to influence each other instantaneously, regardless of the distance separating them-even across the farthest reaches of space. In today's world, economies and political systems behave in much the same way. A tariff decision in Washington reverberates through supply chains in Asia; a shift in energy policy in Moscow affects inflation in Europe; a technological restriction imposed on one country reshapes innovation pathways across continents. Economics, politics, and power are not separate domains-they are entangled forces operating within a shared system.
This entanglement is not passive-it is actively conducted. It is embedded in the architecture of modern global institutions, which function as the transmission mechanisms through which political intent becomes economic consequence. Some inter-country, regional, and global organisations remain primarily geoeconomic, focused on trade, finance, and development; others are geopolitical, cantered on security and strategic alignment. Yet an increasing number now operate across both domains simultaneously. These are not accidental hybrids; they are deliberate constructions designed to maximize influence through the convergence of economic and political instruments.
The European Union (EU) offers a clear illustration. It is often described either as an economic bloc or as a political union. In truth, it is both-and more. Its single market integrates production and consumption across national boundaries. Its regulatory frameworks shape global standards, from data privacy to environmental compliance. Its political institutions coordinate policy across member states, while its collective presence amplifies its global influence. The EU does not merely participate in the system; it acts as a functional conductor of geopoliticonomic forces, ensuring that decisions in the political sphere are instantly transmitted into economic outcomes.
At the country level, the United States (US) stands as the most prominent example of a nation operating within a geopoliticonomic order. Its global economic reach-anchored by the dominance of the dollar, control over financial infrastructures, and influence over trade and technology standards-is inseparable from its geopolitical strategy and power projection. Trade policies, financial sanctions, and military alliances are not independent tools; they function as an integrated system through which economic leverage reinforces political objectives and sustains global influence.
Another compelling illustration of geopoliticonomy in action-albeit at a regional level with global repercussions-can be seen in Iran's response to the joint military alliance of the U.S. and Israel. What was not fully visible before the conflict is the extent of Iran's regional geopoliticonomic leverage. Iran's effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, its disruption of global energy supply chains, and its targeted strikes on regional infrastructure and U.S. military assets together constitute more than acts of war. They represent a deliberate exercise of counter-geopoliticonomic leverage, where geography, economics, and military capability converge to challenge an existing power structure. In this entangled system, even a regional power can exert global influence by strategically weaponizing economic chokepoints.
Yet within this architecture lies a defining duality. The same system that provides global public goods-liquidity, financial stability, and a framework for trade and security-also generates structural asymmetries. The geo-coercive dimension is evident in the use of sanctions, regulatory reach, and control over payment infrastructures that can compel compliance beyond national borders. The geo-extractive dimension is more subtle, reflected in the advantages conferred by dollar centrality and financial asymmetries, which allow value to be retained disproportionately within the core of the system. The neutrality of these instruments, therefore, is often more apparent than real stabilizing at the center while exerting pressure at the margins.
That order, however, is no longer uncontested. Signs are emerging of a counter-architecture taking shape-led by countries such as China, Russia, and Iran, and supported by a wider circle of states seeking greater strategic autonomy. Efforts to bypass the U.S. dollar in energy trade, the development of alternative payment systems, and the increasing use of domestic currencies in cross-border transactions all point to an evolving challenge to American centrality.
This shift is not accidental-it is catalytic. America's own geopoliticonomic overreach-through the aggressive use of sanctions, tariff weaponisation, and the politicisation of financial channels-may be accelerating the very transformation it seeks to prevent. Instruments that once reinforced dominance are now generating incentives for others to construct parallel systems. In attempting to extend its reach, the US may be hastening the emergence of a rival geopoliticonomic bloc in what was once a largely unipolar order.
What we are witnessing is not merely a change in economic preference but a structural response to power. When economic tools are repeatedly deployed for geopolitical ends, they cease to be neutral mechanisms and become strategic signals. Other nations respond accordingly-diversifying currencies, building alternative institutions, and strengthening regional alliances. The result is not fragmentation in the traditional sense, but the gradual formation of a multipolar geopoliticonomic landscape.
This reality also challenges conventional economic analysis. Traditional models remain valuable for understanding market behaviour, price formation, and resource allocation. But when applied without regard to political context and power dynamics, they offer only a partial view. They explain how markets function, but not how they are shaped, constrained, or redirected by strategic considerations. Economic outcomes today are increasingly the result of deliberate policy choices embedded within broader geopolitical strategies.
Geopoliticonomy is not a theory waiting to be tested; it is a reality waiting to be recognised. This war has revealed a critical shift in the logic of deterrence. A country does not necessarily need nuclear weapons to deter a superpower. Effective deterrence can be achieved if it possesses the capability to strike neighbouring countries that host the superpower's military bases, as well as the ability to target critical infrastructure within range using drones and missile systems. In such a setting, deterrence is no longer defined solely by nuclear parity, but by the credible threat of regional as well as global supply chain disruption and escalation.
Dr Abdullah A Dewan is Professor Emeritus of Economics, Eastern Michigan University (USA); and former physicist and nuclear engineer, BAEC.
aadeone@gmail.com