COUNTRIES don’t go to war. The leaders of countries go. They marshal their reasons, stir up the public, dehumanize the enemy and send out their forces. The number of people responsible for the decision to go to war can usually fit comfortably inside a single large-sized room. Leaders only occasionally represent the best of humanity so they exhibit the same failings and weaknesses as the rest of us. They get angry when they shouldn’t, let their egos motivate them more than they should and are concerned with doing what’s popular rather than what’s right. They suffer from three poisons: greed, anger and stupidity.
The true cause of war lies in the unchecked rampaging of these three poisons through the hearts of individual people. Though the situations confronting world leaders that lead them to decide to wage war often seem complex, the only way in which they’re different from conflict that erupts between two people standing in a room is that they occur on a larger scale. But if in civilized societies we expect people to work out their differences amicably (whether themselves or with the help of the courts), why don’t those same expectations apply to differences between civilized countries? IS War necessary to solve the disputes?
In a world in which tyranny continues to exist, war may, in fact, sometimes be justified. In the same way it’s necessary to fight to defend oneself when attacked, so too it’s sometimes necessary to go to war to put down injustice or even the possibility of injustice when its likelihood is great enough. Rarely, however, is this given as a primary reason. Even democracies seem to be going to war only for self-interest.
Fair enough. But when any leader chooses war, he or she should do so with a heavy heart. As the Buddha once said when asked if killing was ever to be permitted: “It is enough to kill the will to kill.” In other words, we should strive to kill the idea that killing others should be anything other than the very last action we ever permit ourselves to take. Buddha was a realist. He knew the world would always be filled with people bent on committing evil, people whose ideas involve oppressing and killing others, yet he would stress standing against them in concrete, practical ways.
World is presently experiencing its highest number of active state-based conflicts since World War II. The chances of achieving immediate global peace hence seem statistically low. However, regional stability varies greatly; while some areas face intense geopolitical volatility, others—like parts of South America and Asia-Pacific—demonstrate resilience. The Global Peace Index (GPI) highlights several critical factors regarding the state of global stability which do not bode well for peace, stability and tranquility.
According to the GPI, average country peacefulness has deteriorated over the last decade, reaching the most fragile state seen since 1945. Rising Military Spending/ expenditures, globally, hit a record US$2.9 trillion. Concurrently, the economic impact of violence reached US$21.81 trillion, which is roughly 10.5% of the total global economy. Technological Escalation and AI, posing a major hurdle to peace, is the rapid evolution of asymmetric warfare. The use of drones has skyrocketed by over 11,500%, while AI and machine learning capabilities are compressing battlefield targeting times from days to seconds.
Whether peace is possible in the Middle East depends entirely on how you define “peace.” While a comprehensive, permanent end to all conflict is highly unlikely, pragmatic, step-by-step stability is achievable through localized diplomacy, economic integration and grassroots moderation. The region’s challenges are complex and multifaceted. The Israeli-Palestinian impasse has created decades of displacement, occupation and conflicting territorial claims remain the primary hurdle. Deep mutual distrust makes broad, top-down treaties difficult, though incremental de-escalation can prevent full-scale violence. Regional power struggles, especially between Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, fuel proxy conflicts in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon, alongside domestic instability, unemployment and weak governance.
Despite this, there are pathways to building stability. Pragmatic diplomacy, Incremental agreements rather than “grand bargains” can yield tangible results. Normalizing diplomatic and economic ties between countries in the region is achievable when mutual strategic interests align. Grassroots Peace building efforts through Scholars and local leaders who have formed grassroots movements focused on moderation, education and reconciliation (such as the Wasatia Initiative, which advocates for the “middle path” in Islam) can be tried. Economic Integration by expanding shared infrastructure, trade agreements and energy projects creates mutual reliance and incentives of stability over war.
Is peace in the Middle East, therefore, possible in the near future? It is probably still a far cry. Political competition is natural, necessary and part of how the world works. Different places, people and organizations have different interests, so they are always engaged in both competition and cooperation. The possibility of very nasty outcomes is a primary motivation for negotiators working on difficult and costly problems. If there was no chance of worse outcomes, there would be little reason to agree to hard solutions. We all have a stake in world order. Permitting dysfunctional states risks rising migrants, refugees and extremist groups. World peace seems impossible because of unmastered ambition, unresolved grievances and the large number of people who have not learned to restrain themselves or prioritize cooperation over self-interest. In short, it appears a “utopia,” due to a shortage of people who are experts at living rather than destruction.
—The writer is Former Civil Servant and Consultant (ILO) & International Organisation for Migration and author of seven books.
