THERE is a dangerous illusion being sold to the world: that today’s conflicts are accidental, reactive or driven by isolated leaders with unpredictable temperaments.
That is intellectual laziness. What we are witnessing is not chaos, but continuity. The growing hostility toward Iran, the open talk of military action and the blunt ambitions to control resources across regions are not personal quirks of any one leader. They are symptoms of a deeper disease embedded in the structure of global power.
For decades, Western liberal democracy has marketed itself as the moral high ground of civilization: guardian of freedom, human rights and rule-based order. That narrative collapses the moment you examine real behaviour instead of polished speeches. When strategic interests are at stake, principles vanish. Countries are invaded, governments are destabilized, economies are strangled and civilian populations are punished without hesitation. The mask of morality is worn only when convenient.
The open admission by powerful leaders that military force can be used at personal discretion is not just arrogance, it is a confession of how fragile the global system has become. When the most powerful state on earth feels no need to justify aggression through international law, it signals the death of collective accountability. That is not leadership. That is imperial behaviour in modern packaging.
The United Nations was created to prevent this exact outcome. Yet today, it stands exposed as a ceremonial institution, loud in language and silent in action. Its resolutions are ignored by those who possess power and enforced only against those who lack it. The Palestinian tragedy, stretching across decades, is the clearest indictment. So is the unresolved occupation of Kashmir. So are the invasions of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, all executed under the rhetoric of security but driven by strategic interest. The UN has not failed because of lack of ideas. It has failed because powerful states never intended to be bound by it.
The targeting of Iran must be understood within this broader pattern. The question is not whether Iran is perfect. No state is. The real question is why Iran remains such a persistent obstacle to Western-Israeli strategic ambitions. The answer is uncomfortable but obvious: Iran’s current political structure refuses to submit. It refuses to become a client state. It refuses to accept the regional order envisioned by those who seek unquestioned dominance.
Regime change has been the preferred method for dealing with such resistance. Economic pressure, sanctions, internal destabilization and political engineering have all been attempted. Public protests driven by genuine economic hardship have been manipulated externally in the hope of transforming discontent into collapse. When that failed, the rhetoric escalated toward open confrontation. The re-emergence of plans involving the return of the former monarchy’s heirs is not a coincidence. It reflects a strategic desire to recreate an Iran that once cooperated closely with Western intelligence agencies and Israeli security interests. This is not speculation. It is historical memory. During the era of the Shah, cooperation between Iranian intelligence and foreign agencies was routine. That Iran was geopolitically useful. Today’s Iran is not. That is the difference.
A military strike on Iran would not remain contained. Anyone suggesting otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest. Iran possesses both the capability and the will to retaliate. American bases across the region would become immediate targets. Proxy conflicts would intensify. Sectarian tensions would explode. Regional instability would become global economic shock. And while ordinary people would suffer, strategic planners would quietly benefit from the chaos they helped create.
Ironically, these developments also expose the limits of Western influence. The Abraham Accords, often presented as a diplomatic triumph, have not delivered regional stability. Instead, many Muslim-majority states are quietly reconsidering their security strategies. Defense cooperation with Pakistan is increasing. Joint initiatives involving Turkey are emerging. These are not symbolic gestures. They reflect a growing realization that dependence on Western protection is unreliable and often exploitative. This shift creates both opportunity and risk. Opportunity for Muslim nations to build independent security architectures. Risk if those efforts remain fragmented, driven by short-term politics rather than strategic vision. Without serious coordination, these alliances will remain weak and vulnerable to external manipulation.
The most brutal truth is this: the current international order is structurally incapable of delivering justice. It was designed by the powerful, for the powerful. Expecting fairness from it is naive. If global catastrophe is to be avoided, a new framework must emerge, one that is not controlled by a handful of veto-wielding states but shaped by genuine collective will. That requires leadership from countries that are willing to prioritize humanity over dominance.
China, Russia, the Islamic world and independent states across Africa, Asia and Latin America cannot afford to remain passive spectators. Silence is complicity. Fragmentation is surrender. If they fail to act collectively, the future will not be shaped by diplomacy but by force.
—The writer is contributing columnist, based in Turbat, Balochistan.
