Brute Force Prevails The Global Order – OpEd




March 22, 2026 

By Ramesh Jaura


Wars no longer announce themselves with official proclamations. They creep forward, strike by strike, each retaliation erasing another line once thought uncrossable. In April 2024, Israel’s unprecedented strike on an Iranian military facility near Isfahan shattered former red lines and signalled a new phase of confrontation. Days later, Iran responded with swarms of drones and missiles aimed at Israeli targets, marking the first openly acknowledged Iranian attack against Israeli territory.

What was once unthinkable soon becomes routine, as these real-world escalations play out in full view. The Israel-Iran conflict now unfolds, intensifying with every blow. The old guardrails that kept wider war at bay are dissolving, endangering not only the Middle East’s tenuous balance but also the very trust in the global order.

The latest eruption of violence between Israel and Iran constitutes a watershed in the region’s history. Once waged in the shadows amidst covert raids, cyberattacks, and proxy battles stretching from Lebanon to Syria, the conflict has now exploded into daylight. Direct strikes on critical targets and unmistakable reprisals have replaced secrecy with spectacle.

Israel’s deep incursions into Iran, reportedly backed by the U.S., have smashed through boundaries once held sacred. These are not just warnings. They are bold demonstrations of force, aimed at crippling Iran’s strategic heart and sending a clear message: Israel is prepared for open conflict.

Iran’s response, cautious though resolute, has shifted from rhetoric to action. Missiles fly, drones hover, and allies rally—Tehran makes clear it will not remain silent. Still, every move is calculated, stopping short of the spark that could set the region ablaze.Subscribe

The Paradox

This is the paradox at the heart of the current moment: escalation without total war.

What once lurked behind veils of denial now stands exposed. The shadow war has stepped into the sun, and every disclosure multiplies the risks and raises the stakes.

What makes this moment so unnerving is not only the speed of escalation, but the stage on which it unfolds. The institutions built to contain chaos, especially the United Nations, are pushed aside just when they are needed most. Diplomacy limps behind the roar of missiles, and pleas for restraint sink into the noise.

The result is a growing sense of impunity. States, especially those protected by powerful friends, act boldly with little fear of consequences from the wider world.

Meanwhile, Europe—once a hopeful mediator—has faded from the spotlight. Its words are heard, but its influence barely registers. In a region longing for urgent diplomacy, that absence is impossible to ignore.

This is more than another chapter of Middle Eastern turmoil. It is a revealing moment for the global order itself, as raw power steadily overshadows principle and the instruments meant to prevent catastrophe fall behind.
The United Nations: Presence Without Power

The United Nations remains the most visible embodiment of the post-1945 international order. Its General Assembly convenes, its agencies operate across countries, and its resolutions continue to articulate the norms that support global governance.

But visibility is not the same as influence.

The UN was built on a fundamental compromise: that the major powers would retain decisive influence—through the veto in the Security Council—in exchange for their participation in a system of collective security. That compromise reflected the realities of 1945. It is assumed that great-power cooperation, however limited, would remain possible.

Today, that faith is fraying, stretched nearly to breaking.

The Security Council has become less an instrument of action than a stage for geopolitical division. When the interests of its permanent members collide, paralysis is inevitable. On Ukraine, Russia blocks action. On Middle Eastern crises, the United States shields Israel. On other issues, China asserts its own strategic constraints.

This is no mere hiccup. It is the inevitable outcome of a system designed to reflect power rather than transcend it.

The consequences are deep. The UN continues to speak in the language of international law, but it lacks the means to enforce it. It can condemn violations but not prevent them. It can mobilise humanitarian aid but not halt the conflicts that make such aid necessary.


To address these enforcement gaps, some have suggested reforms such as strengthening the mandate and resources of UN peacekeeping operations, strengthening the International Court of Justice’s capacity to address violations, or creating independent monitoring bodies with real investigative powers.

Others point to alternative mechanisms—such as regional organisations stepping up their involvement in dispute mediation or new forms of international coalitions dedicated to upholding specific norms—that might complement the UN’s limited reach. While no single solution can easily restore credibility or effectiveness, such proposals reflect the urgent search for more robust tools in the face of persistent impunity.

Peacekeeping missions, once seen as one of the UN’s most tangible contributions, are increasingly constrained by limited mandates and political ambiguity. In many cases, they are deployed not to resolve conflicts, but to manage their consequences.

As the gulf between ideals and reality widens, authority quietly drains away.

The UN has not vanished, but when the stakes soar, it is left watching from the sidelines.
The U.S.–Israel Axis and the Politics of Alignment

The alliance between the United States and Israel has long been a defining feature of Middle Eastern geopolitics. In the current crisis, however, it plays a more complex and consequential role.

For Washington, Israel remains a critical strategic partner—a technologically advanced military ally in a region marked by volatility and competing influences. For Israel, U.S. support provides both material assistance and diplomatic cover, mainly within international institutions where criticism might otherwise translate into binding action.

Yet this alliance sends shockwaves far beyond its two architects.

In much of the Global South, U.S. policy is increasingly perceived as selective, even partisan. The application of international norms appears uneven, bolstering a sense that power determines not only outcomes but also the interpretation of rules.

This perception erodes the credibility of the entire global system. It makes diplomacy an uphill battle and stokes the belief that international rules are rigged and unjust. For instance, a 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that majorities in countries such as Indonesia, South Africa, and Brazil viewed key Western powers as applying international norms inconsistently in global crises.

Recent international diplomatic incidents, such as the collective walkout by several African and Latin American delegations during UN debates on Middle Eastern conflict resolution, further demonstrate the deepening scepticism toward perceived double standards. The result is a growing chorus—among both officials and global publics—that multilateral institutions are shaped more by political alignment than by universal principles.


Meanwhile, Israel’s military actions—framed as essential for security—risk throwing fuel on the fire. Strikes on critical Iranian sites spark fresh cycles of escalation that soon spiral beyond control.

Iran, under Ali Khamenei, operated within a strategic framework that blends ideological resolve with pragmatic caution. Its rhetoric emphasised resistance, endurance, and the willingness to bear sacrifice. Yet its actions suggested a keen awareness of limits. Tehran’s strategy has long relied on indirect influence—through allied groups and asymmetric capabilities—rather than confrontation with superior military forces.

Yet this unstable balance wobbles on a knife’s edge.

The true peril lies not in a deliberate march to war, but in a single fatal miscalculation. A warning shot could be read as a declaration. An attempt to restore balance might only stoke the blaze.

In this volatile climate, alliances built to prevent conflict can instead accelerate it, ensnaring all sides in spirals of action and reaction that quickly spin out of control.Subscribe
Europe’s Strategic Absence

While the United States remains deeply engaged, Europe stands in stark contrast—its strategic voice barely a whisper when the world most needs it.

The European Union has long positioned itself as a normative power, shaping global affairs through diplomacy, economic leverage, and legal frameworks. This model proved effective in a period characterised by relative stability and institutional cooperation.

But today’s world is an unfamiliar landscape.

In an era defined by rapid escalation and hard power, Europe’s tools are less decisive. Internal divisions among member states complicate collective action. Differing national interests, historical experiences, and political priorities limit the EU’s ability to respond cohesively.

Moreover, Europe’s security dependence on the United States constrains its strategic autonomy. In major crises, European policy often aligns with Washington, reducing its capacity to act as an independent mediator. Yet opportunities remain for Europe to chart a more influential course.

The EU could accelerate steps to build up its own defence and crisis-response capabilities, reducing reliance on external actors. Regularly convening dedicated diplomatic tracks on regional security, with European envoys engaging all relevant parties, could offer an independent forum for mediation. Renewed investment in energy diversification and resilience would also bolster Europe’s leverage in global affairs.

Some policy analysts have proposed reforms such as revising qualified majority voting within the EU’s foreign policy decision-making and deepening partnerships with key actors in the Global South. By pursuing these and similar strategies, Europe could begin to reclaim a seat at the table where the rules of the emerging order are set.


The result is a strategic vacuum that reverberates far beyond Europe’s frontiers.

Europe recognises its own shackles and strains to break free, but its efforts fall flat.

In a more balanced international system, Europe might serve as a bridge—facilitating dialogue between competing powers, offering alternative pathways to de-escalation, and reinforcing the role of international institutions.

Today, that promise remains unfulfilled.

This absence widens global rifts, leaving even fewer voices to bridge the chasm between adversaries.
Multipolarity Without Stability

Some call this a move toward multipolarity, but what emerges is neither stable nor orderly. Instead, we face a restless, splintered world, riddled with shifting alliances and competing power centres.

New platforms such as BRICS and the G20 reflect the growing influence of emerging powers and the desire for more inclusive forms of governance.

They provide important forums for dialogue and coordination. But they lack the universality, institutional depth, and enforcement mechanisms of the UN.

At the same time, states turn to nimble, smaller coalitions—so-called minilateralism. These quick partnerships enable swift action among allies, but they also splinter the global order.

What takes shape is not a new order, but the slow unravelling of the old.

We are stepping into a world of tangled frameworks, unfinished alliances, and sudden twists—a system where rules survive but are bent or brushed aside whenever power demands.
A World of Interconnected Crises

Unlike the period preceding World War II, today’s risks do not arise from a single, clearly defined trajectory toward global conflict.

Instead, today’s dangers arise from the collision of polycrises—regional wars, economic shocks, and strategic rivalries that amplify one another.

A clash in one region can send tremors rippling across continents. Escalation now spreads like a web, branching in every direction instead of following a single path.

The Israel–Iran confrontation exemplifies this dynamic. It intersects with broader geopolitical rivalries, influences global energy markets, and shapes strategic calculations across continents.

In this tangled web, the margin for error vanishes. Even small missteps can trigger consequences far beyond their intent.

The Limits of Reform

Calls to reform the United Nations have grown louder, reflecting widespread recognition that its structures no longer align with contemporary realities.

Yet genuine reform drifts ever further out of reach.

Proposals to expand the Security Council, limit the veto, or enhance representation for the Global South face a fundamental obstacle: they require the consent of those whose power would be diminished. Yet even as broad reforms remain out of reach, a focus on incremental changes may offer a more realistic path forward.

Feasible steps include enhancing transparency within the Security Council’s deliberations, increasing the frequency and weight of informal consultations with non-permanent members, and establishing independent expert panels to provide regular, public assessments of council action and compliance.

Additional mechanisms, such as strengthening early-warning and prevention mandates within the UN Secretariat or expanding the Peacebuilding Commission’s authority to support fragile states, could be adopted without altering the core power structure. Though limited, these measures could provide tangible improvements and help restore a measure of trust and relevance to the UN’s daily work.

That consent is almost certain to remain out of reach.

The result is a stubborn paradox: the need for reform is plain to all, yet the road to change remains barricaded.

In the meantime, the UN continues to operate within constraints that limit its effectiveness in precisely those areas where it is most needed.
Caught Between Worlds

We are living in an age of transition, suspended in the gap between fading worlds.

The post-1945 order has not disappeared, but it no longer defines global politics as it once did. At the same time, no coherent alternative has emerged to replace it.

This limbo is, by its nature, precarious.

Institutions continue to function, but with diminished authority. Power is more dispersed, but not necessarily more balanced. Cooperation persists, but it is increasingly conditional and situational.

In this world, uncertainty is the only constant.
The Return of Responsibility

The UN’s waning strength exposes a deeper reality: no institution can substitute for the force of political will.


The unfolding confrontation between Israel and Iran illustrates this reality with stark clarity. The mechanisms designed to prevent escalation exist, but they are not decisive. The actors involved are aware of the risks, yet they continue to act in ways that increase those risks.

This does not guarantee a wider war, but it makes the task of managing conflict far more uncertain and fraught.

In this shifting landscape, responsibility passes from one set of hands to another.

It no longer rests solely with institutions, but with states themselves and with their willingness to choose restraint, even when they hold the power to act otherwise. This willingness is not based solely on altruism. States may find compelling incentives for restraint in the desire to avoid catastrophic escalation, preserve regional stability, maintain valuable alliances, or safeguard economic interests that could be jeopardised by broader conflict.

Reputation and the risk of international isolation also play a role, as do calculations about long-term security and the internal costs of war. Even hostile rivals may recognise that unchecked escalation carries risks that can outweigh momentary gains. By identifying and strengthening these underlying motivations, policymakers can seek to encourage more responsible behaviour in an increasingly turbulent world.

Whether that restraint endures is the question that will shape our era.

For now, the direction is clear: escalation surges ahead, institutions lag, and the global order—once anchored in shared rules—drifts toward a world increasingly governed by brute force.




Ramesh Jaura

Ramesh Jaura is a journalist with 60 years of experience as a freelancer, head of Inter Press Service, and founder-editor of IDN-InDepthNews. His work draws on field reporting and coverage of international conferences and events.