Shadows of war & unraveling world order

2026-03-18 - 21:41

THE present moment in global affairs bears an unsettling resemblance to those rare periods in history when events move with such speed and unpredictability that even the most experienced observers struggle to make sense of them. What once seemed unlikely now unfolds with alarming regularity, as if the restraints of caution and collective wisdom have gradually eroded. The ongoing confrontation involving Iran, Israel and the United States exemplifies this dangerous shift, revealing a world drifting toward instability. For years, it was assumed that any escalation involving Iran would follow a familiar pattern. There would be calculated responses, symbolic actions and eventually a return to negotiation under an unspoken understanding of limits. However, the present crisis has disrupted that expectation. It has moved beyond controlled brinkmanship, introducing a level of intensity that suggests established norms are no longer reliable guides. The tragedy of Gaza has already become one of the darkest chapters of contemporary history. Israel’s direct military actions, coupled with the tacit backing of the United States, have drawn widespread condemnation. Yet despite global outrage, meaningful intervention has remained absent. The international community has spoken forcefully, but its words have not translated into decisive action, exposing the limitations of existing global mechanisms. In a notable development, voices within the United Kingdom have begun to confront the historical roots of the conflict. In early March 2026, nearly forty-five parliamentarians from across political lines addressed an open letter to Prime Minister Keir Starmer. They called upon the British government to formally acknowledge and apologize for its role in Palestine between 1917 and 1948. This appeal reflects a growing recognition that the origins of the conflict are deeply embedded in history. At the centre of this call lies the legacy of the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate. The signatories argue that Britain, in exercising imperial authority, disregarded international principles and denied Palestinians their right to self-determination. By assuming control over the fate of a land and its people, it set in motion consequences that continue to shape the present crisis. This moment of reflection highlights the enduring relevance of historical decisions. Meanwhile, Washington and Tel Aviv appear to have miscalculated Tehran’s resolve. Iran’s response has not been limited or symbolic. Instead, it has been forceful and expansive, altering the strategic landscape. This unexpected intensity has challenged long-standing assumptions about deterrence and raised new uncertainties about the direction of the conflict. Equally significant is the response of traditional Western allies. In previous confrontations, the United States could rely on consistent support from European partners. This time, however, the reaction has been more cautious. Countries such as the UK and others in Europe have shown reluctance to fully align themselves, signaling a possible fatigue with prolonged involvement in distant wars. The position of the Gulf States further reflects this changing environment. Historically aligned with American interests, these nations now face immediate risks due to their proximity to the conflict. Their hesitation to support Washington fully indicates a pragmatic reassessment of their vulnerabilities. The costs of alignment are no longer theoretical; they are direct and potentially severe. Reports of Iranian strikes on installations linked to American interests in the Gulf have added to the uncertainty. Whether entirely accurate or not, such accounts contribute to a perception that deterrence may be weakening. Similarly, claims that Israel’s defence systems are under strain have unsettled allies and emboldened adversaries, complicating the strategic balance. One of the most consequential aspects of the crisis is Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow passage is vital for global energy supplies, carrying a significant share of the world’s oil. Even the possibility of disruption has sent shockwaves through international markets, highlighting the fragile interdependence of modern economies. While the United States may be less vulnerable due to its energy production, the global implications remain severe. The financial costs of the conflict are already substantial. Billions of dollars have been spent in a short period, reflecting the immense burden of modern warfare. Yet more concerning is the lack of clear objectives. What began as an effort to curb Iran’s nuclear program has expanded to include its missile capabilities and oil infrastructure. This shifting focus risks turning the conflict into an open-ended engagement without a clear resolution. The effects of this crisis are also being felt in South Asia. The growing alignment between India and Israel, along with their reported interactions with Afghanistan, presents a complex challenge for Pakistan. Under current conditions, Afghanistan appears less as a source of stability and more as a potential conduit for asymmetric threats. This perception adds to regional uncertainty. For Pakistan, these developments demand vigilance and strategic clarity. The persistence of cross-border threats, combined with the risk of opportunistic actions by regional adversaries, creates a delicate situation. While Pakistan has so far responded with restraint, the evolving dynamics require careful planning and national unity. Ultimately, the unfolding crisis reflects a world in transition. Established patterns are weakening and traditional alliances are being reconsidered. Modern conflicts have a tendency to expand beyond their initial scope, making them difficult to contain. Even as key actors express a desire to disengage, they find themselves increasingly entangled. History will judge the decisions made in these uncertain times. One truth, however, is already clear: in an interconnected world, conflicts cannot be contained within borders. Their consequences spread across regions, affecting economies, alliances and global stability. Whether wisdom will prevail over impulse remains uncertain, but the answer will shape the future of the international order. —The writer is Director General Research, National Assembly Secretariat, Parliament House, Islamabad. (ememiqbal68@gmail.com)