A game of power

Business Recorder

13 hours ago

The world today finds itself at a dangerous crossroads. Regional conflicts once seen as isolated flashpoints Palestine, Iran, Ukraine, South Asia are now connected by a shared pattern of escalating militarism and institutional paralysis.
These clashes are not random, they represent deeper power shifts and systemic failures that affect global stability. Gaza has become a global symbol of civilian suffering and collective neglect. Since the latest round of violence began earlier this year, more than 55,000 civilians, many of them women and children have perished under Israeli airstrikes targeting densely populated neighbourhoods.
Hospitals, schools, and residential buildings have been reduced to rubble, leaving families homeless and traumatized. Aid convoys were delayed, communications blacked out, and displaced families had little time or space to find shelter. These events bear the marks of a broader strategic purpose yet were met only with official statements urging 'restraint.'
This disparity between words and deeds has exposed serious flaws in international governance. The United Nations has repeatedly failed to enforce its own principles. Security Council resolutions condemning the violence were blocked or diluted, and the institution's ability to hold perpetrators accountable has steadily eroded.
Meanwhile, some of the world's wealthiest nations traditionally champions of peace have maintained steady military cooperation with Israel, citing 'security partnerships' and shared democratic values. But when these ideals clash with civilian devastation, they echo hollow.
These interconnected crises highlight troubling inconsistencies in global response. In Ukraine, Russian aggression sparked worldwide condemnation, sanctions, and aid. In contrast, the immense suffering in Gaza continues under a more muted chorus. Israel's strikes on Iran did not trigger the kind of protests or political backlash that similar actions might have elsewhere.
The metric for international outrage appears selective, shaped less by principle than by political convenience. Israel's current leadership has pursued a policy rooted in deterrence and territorial control.
Statements by officials emphasized pre-emptive removal of threats. This posture culminated in June when, under intense domestic pressure, Israel launched airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites in Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. Though justified as halting nuclear weaponization, these facilities were under international inspection, with no clear evidence of weapons development.
The US President Donald Trump, responded with 'Operation Midnight Hammer,' deploying seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers to strike the same Iranian facilities. The use of bunker-busting munitions and Tomahawk missiles represented an escalation beyond deterrence.
In response, Iran launched a measured counterstrike, targeting the U.S. base in Al Udeid, Qatar. However, diplomatic warnings were issued in advance to avoid human casualties. Analysts interpreted this as a display of capability rather than a bid for escalation – an assertion of sovereignty without tipping into war.
Iran's situation remains complex. Decades of sanctions and embargoes have fostered a national identity of resilience. Whether its measured response will lead to renewed diplomacy or deepen the arms race is uncertain. Still, Iran's recent moves suggest a willingness to assert strength without surrendering to war an approach that may open paths to new negotiations or at least delay further escalation.
The India-Pakistan standoff in May 2025 highlighted the dangers and limitations of South Asian power dynamics. Triggered by Indian cross-border aggression near the Line of Control in Kashmir, Pakistan responded with precision airstrikes using JF-17 jets and electronic warfare systems to neutralize Indian defense assets.
Within days, Indian forces withdrew, unable to consolidate their advance. Though casualties were limited compared to past conflicts, the episode underscored Pakistan's enhanced military readiness and redefined South Asian strategic equations.
Pakistan's global position is increasingly important both strategically and morally. As one of only two Muslim-majority nuclear states, it bears significant responsibility for regional stability.
Domestically, it must confront internal paralysis, combating corruption, modernizing infrastructure, and strengthening democratic accountability. Externally, Pakistan has the potential to lead through religious diplomacy and peacekeeping efforts, projecting a vision of stability rooted in shared values and multilateral engagement. Despite its strategic significance, Pakistan often remains outside mainstream international discourse a silence that can no longer be afforded.
In Ukraine, now in its fourth year of war, over 12 million people have been displaced and hundreds of thousands killed. Economic fallout has rippled across Europe and the globe destabilizing energy supplies, inflation, and food systems. The West has justified its involvement as defensive solidarity, but broader consequences remain under-addressed.
Similarly, the Gulf states Saudi Arabia, the UAE have remained largely passive despite their financial and geopolitical leverage. Their silence on Gaza and Iran reflects missed opportunities to lead. More engaged diplomacy, humanitarian outreach, and conflict mediation could reframe their regional role from bystanders to stabilizers.
Trump's latest term has been defined by a transactional, often unpredictable foreign policy. His critique of Israeli aggression while still affirming support was a marked departure. Praising Iran's measured missile response signalled internal rifts in U.S. strategic doctrine. These shifts reflect a broader American reorientation away from global policing toward tactical selectivity.
Still, the core issue persists, war has become an industry. Global military spending topped $2.2 trillion in 2024, with the U.S. accounting for nearly 40% of all arms exports. The overlap between commerce and conflict casts doubt on the sincerity of peace pledges. If war sustains economies, can peace truly be achieved?
The time for cosmetic reform is over. International institutions must prioritize substance over symbolism. The UN must overhaul veto powers, enforce civilian protection, and ensure real accountability. International law must move beyond rhetoric to penalize violations with real consequences.
What's missing today is leadership rooted in human dignity. Sustainable peace comes not through bombs or balance sheets, but through transparent governance, economic inclusion, and shared purpose. Even incremental progress a unified humanitarian framework, regional deterrence dialogues, enforceable rights charters could pivot us away from the brink.
The world has a choice. We can let wars define our era or reclaim the moral architecture that once gave diplomacy its weight. Peace must be practical, deliberate, and centered on prevention. Power, after all, should serve people not destroy them.
The article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Business Recorder or its owners