From the perspective of an outside observer, the trajectory of global power dynamics after the two world wars has been marked by significant shifts in geopolitical influence and economic control.
With the British Empire severely weakened by the wars, the United States emerged as the dominant global power, using its position to establish a global economy heavily reliant on the US dollar and its institutions. This system, often seen as exploitative by developing countries, trapped many countries in a cycle of debt and dependence on American financial mechanisms such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Dependence on the dollar also created a framework in which America’s economic interests could dictate much of the world’s trade and financial policy. Countries that attempted to chart an independent course or challenge US hegemony often faced covert or overt intervention by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies, citing “national security”.
In recent years, Russia and China have led the challenge to this American-dominated order. After recovering from the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has positioned itself as a key player in efforts to resist Western influence, especially in regions such as Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East. China, with its rapid economic growth and growing influence, has also positioned itself as a global leader, creating new alliances and trade networks that seek to bypass traditional Western-controlled systems.
The formation of blocs such as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the growing number of countries (now over 159) interested in moving away from a reliance on the dollar indicate a significant shift in the global balance of power. This movement represents an attempt to decentralise global economic control, allowing countries to operate more independently of American financial influence.
From an outside perspective, it appears that the era of unipolar American dominance is being challenged by a more multipolar world, with alternative alliances emerging to challenge US hegemony.
This tension between the old order and the emerging new one signals a period of significant geopolitical recalibration, as nations and regions seek to redefine their roles in a rapidly evolving global landscape. The shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world, in which power is more evenly distributed among several major players, can increase the risk of conflict, including war. This is because periods of transition in the global balance of power are often associated with heightened tensions, uncertainty and competition. Several factors contribute to this increased risk:
When a dominant power such as the United States begins to lose influence, the global rules and norms it has helped to establish may be challenged. As Russia, China and others seek to reshape the international order, the absence of clear, universally accepted rules can lead to confrontation. Competing visions of the world - one based on American-led institutions and another on emerging powers - create points of friction.
With Russia and China challenging US dominance, regions such as Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa are becoming zones of heightened competition. Proxy conflicts, as seen in places like Syria or Ukraine, and essentially, in Israel, often arise when major powers back opposing sides in regional disputes. These conflicts have the potential to escalate into wider wars if the rival powers are drawn directly into the fighting.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly Israel’s wars with groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, has long been influenced by the interests and interventions of external powers, making it in many ways a proxy war. The conflict is not just a local or regional issue, but a focal point for wider geopolitical struggles between major global players - namely the US, Iran and their respective allies. These proxy elements add to the complexity and volatility of the conflict, as global and regional powers clash indirectly through their support for local actors.
The move away from the US dollar, led by Russia and China, is not just an economic manoeuvre but a geopolitical one. The US is likely to see this as a threat to its global dominance and may respond with increased economic sanctions, trade wars or other forms of economic warfare. Such moves can lead to deeper confrontations as countries such as China may retaliate, increasing the risk of military clashes.
In a multipolar world, countries are more likely to invest in military capabilities to secure their interests. Russia and China in particular are modernising their armed forces, while the US maintains its military dominance. This arms race can increase the likelihood of miscalculation or provocation leading to open conflict, especially in contested regions such as the South China Sea, Eastern Europe or the Taiwan Strait.
In a divided world, with multiple powers vying for influence, international cooperation can become more difficult. This applies not only to military issues, but also to crises such as climate change, pandemics and economic instability. The collapse of multilateral forums or agreements, such as arms control treaties, increases the risk of war by reducing the mechanisms for de-escalation.
The rise of nationalism and authoritarianism, particularly in countries such as Russia and China, but also in some Western democracies, can further increase the risk of conflict. Leaders focused on consolidating power at home may use foreign confrontations to whip up nationalist sentiment, leading to aggressive posturing on the international stage. This often makes it more difficult to resolve disputes peacefully.
Even if direct military confrontation is avoided, new forms of conflict such as cyber warfare and hybrid warfare (combining military, political, economic and information tactics) are likely to increase. These can destabilise countries and regions without crossing the threshold into conventional war, but they increase the risk of escalation into armed conflict.
While war is not inevitable, the combination of these factors makes the current global environment more precarious. It will depend on the ability of states to manage competition, maintain open communication and seek peaceful solutions to disputes arising from the ongoing power shifts. However, as history has shown, periods of great power transition are often associated with an increased risk of conflict.
Israel seems to be doing everything it can to be the fuse of an explosive reaction in the world.
