Hostilities in the Middle East pushes the world toward a harsher global order
By Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/authors/fyodor-lukyanov/Russia in Global AffairsRGA on Telegram
© Contributor / Getty Images
The
United States and Israel justified their military campaign against Iran
by claiming it was necessary to protect themselves, and the world, from
a nuclear threat. Tehran was accused of secretly accumulating enough
weapons-grade uranium to build up to 11 atomic bombs. Yet after the
first week of bombing, it became clear that nuclear fears were only part
of the story.
The war against Iran is not merely another Middle
Eastern conflict. It marks the latest stage in a long process of
upheaval that has been reshaping the region since the end of the Cold
War. And the consequences of what is happening today will extend far
beyond the Middle East.
The current war can be seen as the
culmination of a transformation that began more than three decades ago.
The modern Middle East emerged in the 20th century during the decline of
colonial empires. But that order began to unravel in 1991, when the
United States launched Operation Desert Storm to expel Iraqi forces from
Kuwait.
The timing was symbolic. The Gulf War coincided with a
dramatic shift in global politics: the collapse of the Soviet Union, the
end of the Cold War, and the emergence of what was often called the “unipolar moment.” The period of unrivalled American dominance.
What
followed was a chain reaction of crises and interventions. The
terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001 triggered
the global War on Terror, leading to military campaigns in
Afghanistan and Iraq. The Arab Spring then destabilized regimes across
the region, followed by intervention in Libya and the prolonged civil
war in Syria.
Each crisis pulled more actors into the vortex. Gradually, control over events slipped away from those who had initiated them.
For
Washington, the result was a strategic trap. The US sought to reduce
its direct involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts while simultaneously
maintaining its influence. These goals proved increasingly difficult to
reconcile.
With hindsight, it is clear that many American decisions in the
region were reactive. Each step was presented as part of a coherent
geopolitical strategy, yet the long-term consequences were rarely
calculated beyond the immediate horizon.
Donald Trump, during both
his first presidency and his return to office, repeatedly argued that
the US should avoid military interventions far from its own borders. Yet
Iran presented a different challenge.
Iran is the most powerful
state the US has confronted directly since World War II. Not necessarily
in terms of military strength, but in terms of its demographic weight
and regional influence. Attempting to dismantle such a pillar of the
regional order inevitably carries profound consequences.
In
Washington, a widely circulated interpretation suggests that Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump agreed late last year
to launch a decisive campaign against Iran.
According to this
view, the Israeli leadership played a decisive role in shaping the
decision. Trump, who had previously championed a policy of restraint in
the Middle East, deviated from that principle. The White House appears
to have misjudged the political situation in Iran, expecting that a
sharp military strike might trigger internal collapse.
There was also hope for a repeat of a familiar pattern: a rapid, surgical attack followed by a declaration of victory.
But
that scenario failed to materialize. Instead, the region plunged into
instability. And once the war escalated, Washington found itself unable
to step back without risking the perception of defeat.
Domestic
political considerations also mattered. Trump needed the support of
influential political constituencies at home. For many American
evangelicals, Israel holds profound religious significance as the site
associated with the biblical narrative of the Second Coming. At the same
time, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner remained an important personal
influence. He has long been connected to Israeli political circles.
The result was a convergence of political pressures that pushed the US deeper into the conflict.
In the long run, a new regional framework may emerge in Western Asia. Two pillars of such an order are already visible.
The
first would be Israel’s military dominance across the region. The
second would involve deepening financial and economic ties between
Israel and the Gulf monarchies, with the US positioned to benefit
significantly from these arrangements.
Türkiye remains an
independent player. Yet as a NATO member it remains partly integrated
into Western structures of influence. Israeli strategists are already
discussing the possibility of improving relations with Ankara as part of
a broader regional realignment.
Israel itself appears interested
in the most radical outcome: the political and territorial dismantling
of Iran in its current form. Yet even a less ambitious objective, the
destruction of the political and military influence of the Islamic
Republic’s leadership would be considered a success in Tel Aviv.
However,
even if Iran were defeated militarily in a relatively short time, the
central question would remain unanswered: what comes next?
The
precedent of Iraq in 2003 looms large. The most serious challenges there
emerged only after Washington declared victory. The collapse of state
institutions produced years of chaos.
Some in Washington hope that
Iran might instead follow a Syrian-style scenario, where the fall of
the Assad family eventually produced a government capable of negotiating
with external actors. But that outcome was partly the product of
circumstances and chance. And Iran is a far larger and more complex
state.
The broader implications of this war extend far beyond the Middle East.
First,
the erosion of international legal norms has reached a new stage. Even
before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the US sought some degree of
international approval, including attempts to secure backing from the UN
Security Council.
Today such procedures are largely ignored. The
Trump administration treats international institutions as secondary or
irrelevant.
The use of force in international politics is not new.
But what distinguishes the current moment is the explicit celebration
of power as the primary instrument of global order. The US and Israel
increasingly justify their actions not through international law, but
through the logic of necessity and strength.
Another precedent has
also been set. Israel’s strike that eliminated Iran’s supreme leader
and key military figures marks a dramatic escalation in the practice of
targeted killings.
Such tactics were previously used primarily
against leaders of militant groups. Applying them to internationally
recognized heads of state changes the rules of the game.
For
countries that see themselves as potential targets of American or
Israeli pressure, the lessons are clear. The possession of nuclear
weapons may no longer be viewed merely as a deterrent, but as a
guarantee of political survival.
Trump’s broader approach to
international relations reinforces this trend. His preference is to
bypass multilateral institutions and deal directly with individual
states. In such bilateral confrontations, Washington believes it holds
the advantage over almost everyone except China. And, to a lesser
extent, Russia.
As a result, many countries are increasingly
focused on strengthening their own military capabilities. They seek to
ensure they will never face external pressure without the means to
resist it.
Yet the continued breakdown of international
cooperation will ultimately create more instability for everyone. The
most effective way to address emerging global challenges remains
collective action, based on mutual security and shared interests.
Whether
such cooperation can survive the current geopolitical climate remains
uncertain but if it disappears entirely, the world may soon discover
that dismantling the existing system of international relations was far
easier than building a new one.