There are periods in the history of nations and peoples, and indeed of individuals and the world as a whole, that are marked by a profound sense of uncertainty about the great objectives tied to destiny, survival, and the conduct of life.
In such times, calculations become extraordinarily difficult because information is insufficient, intentions are often concealed, and those leaders upon whose shoulders the future rests experience deep turbulence.
The matter becomes even more complex when crucial issues involve decisions of war and peace, where the margin for error is exceedingly small and forgiveness scarce. At that point, only one question remains: to be or not to be.
Such a condition rarely emerges in its full form except when the global, regional, and national dimensions become intertwined with the standing and decisions of leaders and statesmen. In short, it is a historical moment that demands documentation and reflection.
Reflection requires understanding how we arrived at this difficult-to-diagnose situation and identifying the causes that brought us to this decisive juncture.
Thinking, meanwhile, concerns how to escape the impasse: whether it is possible to develop a grand strategy for dealing with a changing and evolving reality in which each moment differs from the next, and whether such a strategy will simply offer salvation or serve as the foundation for a great future yet to come.
The preceding observations describe the current state of the Middle East, which, for the purposes of analysis, may be referred to as the “Iranian war” in all its manifestations: across the Arabian Gulf and the Red Sea; through Iran’s actions toward Arab states in the Gulf; and around the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandab Strait, both of which have been used to unsettle the world economically and politically.
Added to this is the proliferation of weapons, from missiles to drones that are advancing rapidly in range, speed, and effectiveness. This conflict is linked to another war in Europe, centered on Ukraine, which also affects the global economy, particularly energy markets and drone supply chains.
What makes strategic thinking so difficult is the speed of events and the rapid pace of change, which confront decision-makers and research centers with increasingly complex dilemmas and sometimes revolutionary shifts in the course of history itself.
These developments bring to mind three particularly consequential moments in history.
The first was Europe’s era as the center of the world following the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars that engulfed the continent. It was a period of nearly twenty-five years characterized by revolutionary ideas, industrial and technological transformation, and the intensive use of military force.
The second came in the aftermath of the two World Wars, when the global balance of power was fundamentally altered and two superpowers emerged from the first conflict: the United States and the Soviet Union.
Neither was content merely to halt Nazi Germany’s advance or Japan’s imperial expansion. Both sought to implement global visions, leading to the establishment of the United Nations as a symbol of the possibility of international justice. Yet at the same time, the system ensured that certain powers remained above challenge through the creation of a Security Council whose five permanent members possess veto power.
The third moment was the end of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union and its allies collapsed, ushering in an era of globalization under American leadership.
Are we, as human beings, witnessing another historical process, one that typically begins with a devastating and ruthless war that exposes the weaknesses of the existing order and its inability to maintain the balance necessary for survival and stability? Such processes often end only after profound shifts in power balances and alliances, and after wartime and peacetime technologies advance to levels never before experienced by humanity.
The reality before our eyes is that the leader of the current international order, under US President Donald Trump, differs greatly from what we have known in the past, whether in dealing with adversaries or allies. In one way or another, the United States itself is confronting major historical transformations.
After decades of pride in being a destination for global immigration, immigration issues now occupy the docket of the Supreme Court. And after US-Canadian relations long stood as a model of enduring peace based on mutual interdependence, tariff disputes have now ushered in a period of tension, culminating in Washington warning the European Union against any move to admit Canada as a member.
Yet none of the three historical examples mentioned above ended in perpetual war. Rather, each was ultimately resolved through alliances characterized by determination and decisiveness. Napoleon could only be defeated through the European Concert, which united Russia, Britain, Prussia, and Austria.
A century later, the League of Nations failed because of the American withdrawal, despite President Wilson’s advocacy of the principle of national self-determination. During the Second World War, the US-Soviet alliance helped bring global warfare to an end, particularly after the world witnessed the destructive power of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Today, however, we stand on the threshold of another era, one marked by a different kind of war, and perhaps a far more astonishing one.
