When Does Peace Become the Rule Rather than the Exception?

The United Nations needs structural reform (Photo by Reuters)
The United Nations needs structural reform (Photo by Reuters)
TT

When Does Peace Become the Rule Rather than the Exception?

The United Nations needs structural reform (Photo by Reuters)
The United Nations needs structural reform (Photo by Reuters)

It has become common among analysts to say that the world has entered a new global order, where the logic of “might makes right” has replaced the “power of right,” and the old rules-based international system has faded. International relations are increasingly managed through power and influence rather than consensus and multilateralism. This emerging order is shaped by empires of varying scale seeking to expand spheres of influence and sources of wealth through force, rather than relying on international agreements that place large and small states on equal footing.

 

It is widely understood that the primary goal of any cooperative global order is the pursuit of sustainable peace. In that regard, the Dutch philosopher of Portuguese origin Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677) described peace as “not merely the absence of war but a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice.” Albert Einstein (1879–1955) stressed that “peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.” Since antiquity, Plato viewed the establishment of peace and friendship as the highest duty of both citizen and lawgiver, while Aristotle held that victory in war is not enough, and that the real objective is to secure peace. Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) asserted that peace does not arise from armed conflict, but from justice upheld even in the face of challenges.

 

Peace as the exception

 

Against these perspectives, historical experience shows that peace has been the exception rather than the rule. Over roughly 3,500 to 5,000 years of recorded human history, the world has seen only about 230 to 268 years entirely free of major wars, less than 10 percent of its history. This indicates that conflict has been the dominant feature of human relations, both at the individual and collective levels.

 

A distinction must be made between the “international system” and the “global order.” The international system describes how the world functions in terms of actors, power, motives, and constraints. The global order, by contrast, is a political, institutional, and cultural structure formed through negotiation, cooperation, or even coercion, as occurred after the First and Second World Wars, each of which ended with victors and defeated parties. The global order is not fixed; it is the result of deliberate choices by active powers to organize and manage the world.

 

It is fair to say that the global order that emerged after the Second World War achieved notable successes. The likelihood of large-scale global wars declined, traditional empires with vast geographic reach came to an end, and levels of welfare and prosperity rose to unprecedented levels. The foundations of national sovereignty were also reinforced for many states, based on the principles associated with the Peace of Westphalia. However, this order no longer meets the demands of the profound transformations underway today. This helps explain the growing sense of crisis, the widespread global unease, and serious concern about the outbreak of a third world war carrying the risks of nuclear catastrophe.

 

Shifts and alternative models

 

In recent decades, influence across the globe has been redistributed, with the rise of new powers challenging Western dominance built on material wealth and scientific and technological advancement. Countries within the BRICS group, for example, are playing an increasingly influential economic and political role. This shift goes beyond the transfer of power; it also involves deep intellectual and cultural changes, as non-Western states seek to assert their identities and present alternative models of governance and development.

 

This phase, sometimes described as “post-Western,” presents major existential challenges for both the West and its competitors. It requires broader international cooperation, especially in addressing cross-border issues such as climate change, cybersecurity, migration, organized crime, and terrorism. Yet these shifts are not without tension. Rising powers are seeking to advance their interests, leading to friction with established powers, particularly in trade relations and sometimes in direct confrontations, complicating efforts to build a stable global balance.

 

The rise of nationalist and populist trends adds another layer of instability. These movements, by their nature, tend to question and undermine international cooperation while prioritizing narrow interests, weakening international institutions and threatening global stability. Regional conflicts and great-power competition, such as tensions between the United States and China, further intensify this fragmentation.

 

Another major challenge lies in balancing universal values with national particularities. International standards cannot be imposed unilaterally without regard for cultural and political diversity. As a result, constructive dialogue and flexible, network-based diplomacy, rather than rigid hierarchical structures, become essential to establishing common ground for building peace.

 

Strait of Hormuz is a theater for major conflict (Photo by Reuters)

 

A test of adaptation and cooperation

 

In sum, the current international system is undergoing a profound transformation shaped by the rise of new powers, the relative decline of Western influence, escalating conflicts, mounting global challenges, and intense competition for economic gains that strengthen position and safeguard sovereignty. The future of this system depends on the ability of international actors to adapt, cooperate, build new partnerships, and embrace multiple perspectives to understand the world’s complexity.

 

In this context, the emergence of alternative narratives should not be viewed as a threat but as an opportunity for a deeper understanding of a multipolar world. The international system now taking shape reflects a significant historical shift in which the West is no longer the sole center of power, but one among several.

 

The path toward a more complex and interconnected global order, where different models of governance coexist, is already taking form. Navigating this new reality requires innovative thinking and openness to change, while preserving the structures and institutions that have proven their value, foremost among them the United Nations, which requires structural reform to prevent decline. Ultimately, building a more just, peaceful, and sustainable world depends on a collective will capable of reconciling difference with cooperation.



After Six Months of Iran War, US Goals Have Shifted. The Strait of Hormuz is Now a Top Concern

Vessels are seen in the Strait of Hormuz, off the port city of Bandar Abbas in southern Iran on August 10, 2026. (Photo by Atta KENARE / AFP) /
Vessels are seen in the Strait of Hormuz, off the port city of Bandar Abbas in southern Iran on August 10, 2026. (Photo by Atta KENARE / AFP) /
TT

After Six Months of Iran War, US Goals Have Shifted. The Strait of Hormuz is Now a Top Concern

Vessels are seen in the Strait of Hormuz, off the port city of Bandar Abbas in southern Iran on August 10, 2026. (Photo by Atta KENARE / AFP) /
Vessels are seen in the Strait of Hormuz, off the port city of Bandar Abbas in southern Iran on August 10, 2026. (Photo by Atta KENARE / AFP) /

When President Donald Trump launched the war with Iran in late February, he initially forecast it would last four to five weeks. Six months later, there's still no off-ramp in sight despite Trump's repeated assertions that the war has been won or a deal to resolve it was nearly complete.

A June memorandum of understanding designed to pave the way to end the war has fallen by the wayside. US stockpiles of key weapons have diminished, and the Trump administration has pivoted to pressuring Iran economically rather than launching more strikes, The Associated Press said.

As the shape of the war has morphed over the last half year, so have the goals for the conflict.

One of the prime goals now — reopening the Strait of Hormuz — was not one of Trump's original objectives. The waterway had been a vital shipping lane through which about 20% of the world's oil passed.

But Iran seized on it as a chokepoint for the global economy and it has been largely closed since the war started, driving up prices for fuel and fertilizer needed for farms and creating economic and political pressure in the US.

The US has had tactical success on its goals to degrade Iran's military capabilities. But some of the other key objectives Trump laid out at the start of the conflict remain unfulfilled — and others have shifted.

Here’s a look at the objectives and what we know about where they stand:

Stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon

Last June, Trump declared that the US had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program. But when the war started, his aides justified the strikes by warning that Iran had been just weeks away from developing a bomb.

One of the most pressing questions has been what will be done with a stockpile of about 970 pounds (440 kilograms) of enriched uranium that Tehran could potentially use for a weapon. The material is believed to be buried under three sites bombed by the US and Israel last year. Trump said in a May 29 social media post that it would be retrieved by the US “in close coordination and conjunction with Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”

Iran has not said whether it would consent. Without permission from Iran, experts have said seizing it would be a dangerous mission requiring a sizable deployment of US troops into the country.

Officials said that Tehran reaffirmed in the June memorandum of understanding that it would not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The deal called for Iran to dilute its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. But many other details about Iran's program were left for future negotiations, and it's unclear how much progress, if any, was made before talks quickly fell off.

Reopen the Strait of Hormuz

Trump has said that a proposed deal with Iran would include the reopening of the strait and the US ending its blockade of Tehran’s ports, but at other times he has suggested the international waterway would somehow become American territory and indicated the US could impose a toll on passing ships.

Trump also has repeatedly said that the strait is open, including during an interview on Wednesday on conservative commentator Glenn Beck’s radio show.

“It’s a functioning strait. Yes, every once in a while, there’ll be a drone or a rocket or something shot, but it is a very functioning strait,” Trump said.

Destroy Iran's ability to fire missiles

One of the prime objectives laid out by the administration was to “destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground."

Trump said in late March that Iran's missiles “are mostly decimated" and that 90% of their missiles and launchers were knocked out.

By mid-May, that shifted to a more conservative estimate, with the president saying that 82% of Iran's missiles were gone.

Iran has shown its ability to still launch attacks in the region, including drone strikes on ships sailing through the strait.

As recently as July, the US military still had Iranian military targets to strike, with its Central Command announcing it was striking “Iranian military command centers, air defense and coastal surveillance sites, maritime capabilities, missile and drone launch sites and communications networks.”

Destroy Iran's defense industrial base

Early in the war, the president and his administration sometimes listed this as a standalone objective. Other times, it has fallen off their list.

US Central Command has said its targets for strikes in Iran have included weapons production and missile and drone manufacturing facilities.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers in early June that Iran has had “massive destruction” of its defense industrial base and “80 to 90% of attrition. It will take years for them to rebuild it.”

Eliminate Iran's navy and air force

The US and Israel quickly established air superiority in the skies above Iran, where they flew largely unchallenged.

Rubio told lawmakers that Iran still has drone capabilities, but it lacks the ability to use swarms of drones to attack targets, as it did at the start of the war. He also said Iran does not have a navy anymore, and relies on small craft outfitted with machine guns that harass ships and sometimes drop mines in the water.

Trump on Wednesday said that Iran's navy and air force are “totally gone."

Protect America's Middle Eastern allies

Trump, in a March social media post, added another objective for the US: “Protecting, at the highest level, our Middle Eastern Allies ...".

The US maintains thousands of troops on bases and other installations in the region, but Trump has been unclear on how far he'd be willing to go to protect Middle East allies from threats in the long term. In June, when the US said Iran fired missiles at Kuwait and Bahrain, the US launched strikes on Iran in response.

In mid-August, Trump threatened in an interview that the US would bomb Oman if it “gets in the way," using an expletive for emphasis.

Cut off support for Iranian proxy groups

In March, Trump and his administration repeatedly said degrading Iran's proxy terror networks was a key goal.

As time has gone on, administration officials have offered fewer updates about this objective, which the president described as ensuring that “the region’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces” and “ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund, and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.”

Early on, the US struck Iranian-aligned militia groups in Iraq. But the biggest focus has been Israel's war in Lebanon against Hezbollah, which Iran backs. Iran has insisted that the fighting in Lebanon must be stopped as part of any deal with the US, Israel and the Lebanese government announced a deal, which was mediated by the US, for Israeli forces to leave southern Lebanon in exchange for Hezbollah's disarmament — something an administration official described as a “huge step,” speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to address the issue on the record. But the militant group has refused direct talks and its leader has said it will not disarm.


Death of Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah: The Libyan Who Escaped the Noose of the Lockerbie Case

A photo shows late Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi with Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah (second from left) upon the latter's arrival in the capital Tripoli, a day after his definitive acquittal in the plane bombing case (Tripoli, February 1, 2001) (Getty Images)
A photo shows late Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi with Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah (second from left) upon the latter's arrival in the capital Tripoli, a day after his definitive acquittal in the plane bombing case (Tripoli, February 1, 2001) (Getty Images)
TT

Death of Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah: The Libyan Who Escaped the Noose of the Lockerbie Case

A photo shows late Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi with Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah (second from left) upon the latter's arrival in the capital Tripoli, a day after his definitive acquittal in the plane bombing case (Tripoli, February 1, 2001) (Getty Images)
A photo shows late Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi with Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah (second from left) upon the latter's arrival in the capital Tripoli, a day after his definitive acquittal in the plane bombing case (Tripoli, February 1, 2001) (Getty Images)

On August 25, 2026, in a quiet corner of the Libyan capital Tripoli, the life of Libyan citizen Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah came quietly to an end at the age of nearly 70.

His death officially closes one of the most mysterious and compelling chapters in the history of the diplomatic and intelligence conflict between East and West. It also closes a living chapter in the case of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which was traveling from Frankfurt to New York via London when it exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988, an incident that reshaped international politics for decades.

For an entire decade, the name of this man, who began his career as a low-ranking airline employee, echoed through the corridors of the United Nations Security Council. His photograph appeared on television screens around the world and in newspapers for years as the "second suspect" in the most horrific act of aerial terrorism of the 20th century.

Fhimah was an unwilling participant in a unique legal and political saga in which the details of his everyday life on the island of Malta became the basis of an international case that nearly brought an entire country to the brink. He later stood behind the glass of the historic Camp Zeist courtroom in the Netherlands and heard the word "acquitted" pronounced by Scottish justice at the dawn of the new millennium. He returned home carrying an acquittal that politics had been unable to grant him for years.

His death has reopened the memories of the era of crippling sanctions and international isolation, reminding the world of the story of a man who lived at the heart of the storm and died in complete seclusion, far from the political turmoil that had nearly consumed him.

Forgotten Beginnings: From Tripoli to Luqa Airport

Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah was born in 1956 in the Souq al-Jumaa area on the outskirts of the Libyan capital, Tripoli. He progressed through his career until he joined Libyan Arab Airlines. In the mid-1980s, he was sent to work as an airline official, dispatcher, and station manager for the company at Luqa Airport in Malta.

The position appeared routine for the young employee, had it not intersected with the intense intelligence conflict unfolding across the Mediterranean between the former Libyan regime and the United States and its Western allies.

At the time, Fhimah did not know that his signature on cargo documents and the timing of his shifts at the Mediterranean airport would later become key evidence cited in the international indictment prepared by senior investigators in Washington and London.

The Night the Plane Fell and the International Storm Began

On December 21, 1988, the sky over the Scottish town of Lockerbie was torn apart when a Boeing 747 operated by Pan Am, Flight 103, exploded while traveling from Frankfurt to New York, killing 270 people.

After three years of complex joint investigations by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Scottish police, two Libyan nationals were formally accused in November 1991: Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah.

At the time, Western investigators alleged that Fhimah had used his position and contacts at Malta's airport to facilitate the passage of a bomb-laden brown Samsonite suitcase. The suitcase contained a timed bomb concealed inside a cassette recorder and was allegedly placed aboard a Libyan Airlines flight bound for Frankfurt, from where it was transferred to the doomed Pan Am flight.

Historic Handover and Trial on Neutral Ground

Tripoli initially refused to hand over its citizens, placing Libya under severe international sanctions and an air and economic blockade imposed by the UN Security Council in 1992.

Libya endured a decade of deep isolation and economic paralysis until difficult diplomatic efforts led by Arab and African parties produced a unique legal and historic settlement.

Under the settlement, Libya agreed in 1999 to hand over the two suspects for trial before a special Scottish court, but on neutral ground at Camp Zeist, a former US military base near Utrecht in the Netherlands, under Scottish criminal law.

Camp Zeist Shock: Historic Acquittal and Return

On January 31, 2001, the world held its breath as Scottish judges delivered the verdict millions had been awaiting. While his associate Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, the court definitively acquitted Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah of all charges and ordered his immediate release from behind the bulletproof glass enclosure.

The judges based his acquittal on insufficient evidence and major gaps in the witnesses' account, particularly that of Maltese clothing merchant Tony Gauci. The defense also conclusively established that Fhimah was not in Malta but was in Sweden on a business trip when the bomb-laden suitcase was checked in.

Voluntary Seclusion Until His Final Days

Following his acquittal, Fhimah returned immediately to Libya, where he received a hero's welcome in Tripoli from both officials and the public. He was portrayed as living proof that Western justice itself had established the innocence of the Libyan state from the full American account of events.

Yet the man, exhausted by years of fear, uncertainty, and detention, made a firm decision to stay completely out of the spotlight and politics. He lived the rest of his life as an ordinary citizen among his family in Tripoli, refusing to give press interviews that might reveal the secrets of that era.

The announcement of his death and the official mourning that followed brought a complete chapter of the bitter Libyan-Western conflict to a close.


Gaza’s Children Lose Simple Joy as Israel Warns Against Kite-Flying

Boys fly a kite against the backdrop of smoke rising from the Gath shelter, that houses displaced Palestinians, after an Israeli air strike in the west of Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip on January 31, 2026. (AFP)
Boys fly a kite against the backdrop of smoke rising from the Gath shelter, that houses displaced Palestinians, after an Israeli air strike in the west of Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip on January 31, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Gaza’s Children Lose Simple Joy as Israel Warns Against Kite-Flying

Boys fly a kite against the backdrop of smoke rising from the Gath shelter, that houses displaced Palestinians, after an Israeli air strike in the west of Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip on January 31, 2026. (AFP)
Boys fly a kite against the backdrop of smoke rising from the Gath shelter, that houses displaced Palestinians, after an Israeli air strike in the west of Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip on January 31, 2026. (AFP)

There are few joys left for 10-year-old Ahmed Hamdouna, whose childhood has already been scarred by years of war and displacement in Gaza.

Now, what little reprieve he found playing with scraps of plastic and sticks has also been torn away, as Israel warns it will step up military operations in the territory if kites continue to land on the Israeli side of the border.

"My father stopped me from flying my kites because of the occupation's threats," said Ahmed, who has been displaced to Deir el-Balah in the central Gaza Strip.

"I felt heartbroken after spending so much time collecting sticks and nylon, only for the occupation to prevent us from playing with them," he told AFP.

"We are just young children. They destroyed our home and our whole neighborhood -- what more do they want?"

Israel accuses Hamas of cynically using children and says the kites could pose a threat, years after a wave of incendiary kites and balloons sparked fires in Israeli farmland.

A series of kites have flown in recent days across the border into southern Israel, communities shaken by the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023.

Hamas has denied responsibility. No explosives were detected, but at least one kite had a political message on it.

On Wednesday, an official of the US-led Board of Peace supervising the ceasefire plan in the territory said: "All militant activity in Gaza must stop, including the flying of kites."

"Israel, too, must comply with the ceasefire," a board official said.

Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem said the popular committees in Gaza's displacement camps were trying to prevent children from flying kites, over fears they could be targeted by the Israeli military.

Ahmed said he was now scared of playing, but couldn't understand why the Israeli military was "afraid of kites when they are just paper and string".

"I don't want to hurt anyone. I just want to play like children everywhere else," he said.

- 'Sense of freedom' -

For Gaza's children, building kites was a simple way to find joy among the ruins of war.

"There are no toys here, no amusement parks, not even a football to play with. The kite is the only thing we can make with our own hands that makes us happy when we fly it in the sky," said 11-year-old Yamen al-Mubayyed, who has also been displaced to Deir el-Balah.

"My friends and I get together and make them using pieces of wood we collect from destroyed houses, along with paper and string. We glue them together using flour and water, then go to the sea to fly them," he told AFP.

Yamen said even the buzz of Israeli surveillance drones didn't put him off flying his kites.

"It is the only thing that makes us feel that we children are alive and gives us a sense of freedom," he said.

Israel has kept up attacks in Gaza, saying it is targeting gunmen, despite a US-backed ceasefire which came into effect in October.

Israeli army chief Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir on Tuesday vowed to push on with demilitarizing Gaza "using all necessary means".

- 'Kill the joy in their hearts' -

For parents in Gaza, the once-harmless activity now carries immense worries.

Akram Abu Shurkh, 30, said he had forbidden his children from making kites but felt he had "killed the joy in their eyes" in doing so.

"These are children who do not understand military calculations. They only see it as a game and a way to release their energy," he told AFP.

"But I see death in the touch of the string and the flying of the kite."

In southern Gaza, 34-year-old Umm Moaz Huwayla said her heart raced from worry every time her children went outside with their kites, but felt she couldn't stop them from playing.

"The occupation wants to kill the joy in their hearts," she told AFP.

"They are not asking for much, only to live their childhood, even with a piece of string and a sheet of paper."