Changes in the world order between Asia’s rise and the Middle East crisis
The world today is undergoing many rapid and decisive changes that are redrawing the global map in ways that remain ambiguous and unclear. While the United States still retains its place as a leading global power, its president continues to play fast and loose with his commitments and to shirk longstanding global responsibilities — embracing an “America First” philosophy and a restrained, less engaged global posture (MAGA). President Trump openly expresses his discontent with the post–World War II international order that evolved during the Cold War, favoring instead a world system based on transactional, material and tactical dealings. It is still too early to say whether this approach will bring gains or losses, or whether it will stabilize or shift as circumstances change; leaders must therefore be cautious about what they pursue and wish for.
Looking at Europe, despite its rich historical heritage and decades of relatively coherent regional vision that long made it a power to be reckoned with, it is now confused and perplexed. New members and rising nationalist-populist politics are creating fissures and imbalances that weaken the continent’s standing, attractiveness and value on the world stage.
An Asian rise:
On the global model, one of the most important recent developments is the rise of China alongside the growth of other (Asian) global powers — a trend that confirms an eastward shift away from European centrality. Although these changes are in part a natural product of development, their acceleration is partly attributable to the rough, hardline policies implemented by the Trump administration.
Recent events have made these shifts in the global landscape plain: Chinese celebrations and military parades commemorating Japan’s defeat, together with the visible presence of major powers at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Tianjin held in early September, are evidence of this new growth. The wide and varied participation of leaders at SCO events — and especially the friendly bilateral and trilateral interactions among Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi — clearly signaled these global changes.
Notably, President Putin announced — on the eve of a massive military display in Beijing — that Russian–Chinese relations are of “a strategic nature at an unprecedented level.” Chinese state media described relations with Russia as exemplary. President Xi told Putin that China stands ready to work toward “strengthening the construction of a fairer and more rational system of global governance.” These meetings took place as China’s standing as an influential diplomatic power was rising, even while it negotiated difficult trade talks with the United States. Equally significant was the sight of the three leaders conversing with confidence: Putin and Modi even took a car ride together that Modi later described as insightful.
The recent fourth party congress meeting also reflected a consolidation of trust and strength at the leadership level.
The fact that the leaders of China and India — the two competing Asian giants, historically at odds — are taking clear, cooperative (rather than confrontational) stances represents a notable shift. Until a few decades ago, Indian concerns about China’s policies were a key factor behind New Delhi’s decision to go nuclear — a step Pakistan later followed. What we see today indicates a genuine and significant transformation in Asian relations.
It now appears that decades of a strong strategic U.S.–India partnership — aimed at keeping India outside China’s orbit — have been upended by Prime Minister Modi’s rapprochement with both Russia and China, the United States’ principal rivals. Modi’s response was shaped in part by the Trump administration’s tough tariff measures, which were imposed in part because India continued to buy Russian oil despite unilateral Western sanctions related to the Ukraine crisis.
Prime Minister Modi has shown skill in managing multiple diplomatic tracks at once. President Putin prefers to exploit Trump’s personality traits to maintain distance between the United States and Europe on Ukraine. President Xi — firm in his approach — is focused on successfully concluding the difficult trade talks with the United States. Still, the three leaders clearly felt compelled to send a signal to the United States refusing to be bullied. The question remains: will the United States and the international community retain their influence, or will they lose it?
Regarding Ukraine, it appears that Trump and Putin criticize Europe’s role in pushing the peace process. Trump calls on Europe to stop buying Russian energy and to exert economic pressure on China to stop financing Russia in the Russia–Ukraine war, even though the United States still imports 20% of its uranium needs from Russia.
The Middle East crisis:
Strangely, President Trump — who campaigned on avoiding unnecessary American military interventions and sought recognition as a peacemaker — decided to rename the Pentagon the “War Department” instead of the Department of Defense, a timing and logic that seem odd for someone who claims to be a non-interventionist and reluctant to drag his country into war. He is a man of surprises; what he ultimately proposed regarding ceasefires, prisoner exchanges and detainee swaps north of multiple points reflected a retreat from a particular “Riviera” initiative (often discussed in the media as the “Gaza Riviera” proposal), especially with respect to forced displacement. This underscores that Arab firmness and active diplomatic moves can have an effect — although it is too early to be confident that we are on the verge of resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
The Middle East today lives in extreme chaos and teeters on the brink. Libya, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon have become battlefields. Israel’s excessive use of force across the region — including dramatic strikes on Iran and the Red Sea — increases the likelihood of further conflicts.
Israel’s criminal attacks on Gaza, its genocidal and inhumane practices, and its expansionist policies in the West Bank constitute dangerous illegal actions pushing the entire region away from security and peace. Israel’s tilt toward extremist policies — such as forced displacement and territorial annexation, based on long-standing concepts like the notion of a “Greater Israel” at the expense of neighboring states — raises questions about Israel’s willingness to reach a genuine peace with the Arab world.
Strategically, Arabs want peace and should maintain that position, and there are signs that Israeli policies are pushing several Arab states to warn Israel about the consequences of its actions. For example, Egypt has issued statements and measures in Sinai, and the United Arab Emirates raised the red flag to Israel over plans to annex parts of the West Bank. Egypt and Jordan — both countries that have formal peace treaties with Israel — have publicly stated that the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank poses a threat to their national security. Saudi Arabia and many other Arab countries have taken a clear and firm stance against Israel’s extremist policies.
Israel’s initial reaction to the October 7 events was shock, anger and a desire for revenge, and therefore it used brutal, indiscriminate force with the explicit and calculated aim of eliminating any possibility of Palestinian national expression. On the Palestinian side, the human and material losses were severe; nevertheless, Israel is less secure today and has not defeated Hamas.
In fact, Israel has lost significant support in Western public opinion that once backed it, and it is seeing a growing wave of European governments declaring intentions to recognize a Palestinian state. Thus, it can be concluded that Israel’s brute force has not provided greater security; instead it has come at a heavy political cost.
Globally, what we are witnessing now is the short-sighted arrogance of power that will fail to achieve its stated goals and may instead create even worse conditions. We must all bear witness and remain responsive, because brute force and blatant coercion will inevitably undermine regional and global stability by creating zero-sum outcomes with severe and dangerous consequences for everyone.
