Had it not been for the invention of a return to a “glorious” past, all these senseless wars would never have occurred.
The civilized world assumed that with the end of the Second World War, the era of conquest, annexation, and major catastrophes would end as well. But that is not what happened in reality.
The Middle East, as both a direct and indirect consequence, has witnessed dozens of wars; some would say hundreds.
One of the flaws of modern wars is that they produce neither a clear victor nor a clear loser. They begin with great fury, only to quickly turn into prolonged wars of attrition that exhaust nations and peoples alike, while opening the door to new conflicts.
This is true of the war revolving around the Strait of Hormuz and its impact on the global economy, as well as the war between two kindred nations: Russia and Ukraine.
There are also heated wars of words, such as the one between the United States and Canada over trade, tariffs, and the exchange of goods, and another with Europe over the Danish island of Greenland. These are separate from disputes over straits, seas, waterways, trade routes, changing maps, and the redrawing of spheres of influence.
Are we witnessing a silent world war? The answer, confidently, is yes.
Europe, the world’s largest united bloc, is facing a deep structural crisis as a result of the Russia-Ukraine war. It also faces the specter of fractures within NATO. The United States, the alliance’s principal backer, which long paid the largest share and served as the protective shield and security umbrella for eighty years, has begun stepping back from that role.
According to its national security doctrine, “America First” has become the dominant slogan, trade wars have become the prevailing reality, and Europe’s abandonment in the face of energy crises has become an ongoing drama visible on television news screens.
The issue does not seem purely economic or military. The entire world is recalculating its positions. Old alliances are no longer as solid as they once appeared, interests are taking precedence over slogans, and major powers are moving in multiple directions in search of new footholds in a rapidly changing world.
The Middle East, undoubtedly the stage for multiple complex conflicts, faces both direct and indirect consequences. Whenever it seeks a path toward a just peace in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon, it encounters the Israeli obstacle, an obstacle rooted in a single idea: perpetual war leading ultimately to a Greater Israel, according to the maps repeatedly presented by Benjamin Netanyahu during the turbulent years of the past decade.
Meanwhile, the West Bank and Gaza continue to come under fire, settlements expand across the West Bank, and realities on the ground continue to change, making the prospect of peace more difficult with each passing day.
Netanyahu’s philosophy reveals a profound structural flaw: a flaw in the issue of proxies and in the development of a larger Middle Eastern war. Each side declares that it is resisting the other, yet the outcome often ends up expanding the scope of conflict, prolonging its duration, and providing Israel with additional justifications and opportunities to reshape the region in line with its far-reaching interests.
There is, perhaps, one opportunity, distant yet not impossible: the emergence of a multipolar world. Antonio Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has spoken of the necessity of a multipolar international order.
Until such an order takes shape, this period of global fluidity must be managed with wisdom and restraint to prevent a catastrophic war. Reason must become the defining principle of the coming era, or humanity may find itself rushing toward one of its final moments, final in every sense.
Amid this gray landscape, the Arab world, led by its major and influential states, must think differently. It must wage, through that new perspective, a struggle for survival in the undoubtedly emerging multipolar order.
The challenge is not for Arabs to choose between one pole and another, nor to become instruments in the rivalry of great powers. Rather, it is to acquire, for the first time, a genuine ability to maneuver among these poles and to transform their geographic, economic, and political weight into an independent bargaining power.
The world taking shape before us will not make room for those who wait passively on the margins of the map. Those who seek peace must possess the tools to secure it, and those who seek to protect their interests must know how to navigate the new balance of power.
Perhaps this is the Arab world's rare opportunity amid all this turmoil: to transform multipolarity from a threat looming over the region into a space for movement, maneuver, and the pursuit of interests.
Only then can peace become possible.
And perhaps it could have been possible from the very beginning, had the world not continued searching for the future with the tools of the past.
