Have International Mechanisms for Global Peace Failed?
Author: Abdool Naser Noorzad, Security and Geopolitics Researcher, Special for "Sangar"
Original article: دوران جنگ سرد بهتر بود
The recent tension between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Israel is the result of a redefinition of the regional security system—a chain reaction that began with crises in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, and ultimately led to a direct confrontation between the two main actors. Although the military conflict appeared limited and controlled on the surface, its underlying aim went beyond a mere retaliatory response: it sought to recalibrate and restructure the regional security order.
Both sides, aware of the grave consequences of a full-scale war, attempt to maintain a degree of restraint and balance, as they are also well aware of their own vulnerabilities and weaknesses. At the same time, major global powers fear an expansion of the war’s geographic scope, as its continuation and escalation could have devastating effects on the global economy and geopolitical stability.
However, behind these concerns lie broader goals: designing a new geopolitical architecture, redefining the geography of interests, and solidifying new regional security systems. The support of international actors for both sides suggests that the current confrontation is no longer a purely regional conflict, but rather reflects a wider geopolitical struggle between East and West.
On one hand, global powers see the continuation of such conflicts as necessary for managing rivals; on the other hand, the escalation and spread of these wars contradict their strategic interests. Therefore, both the continuation of war in various forms and its de-escalation through cautious mediation remain plausible scenarios.
The global community’s meaningful silence in the face of this crisis raises serious questions about the fragility of the international order and the ineffectiveness of mechanisms responsible for maintaining peace and security. In reality, institutions such as the UN Security Council, NATO, and other international bodies that once played a deterrent role have now largely become tools serving the interests of the great powers.
Possible Scenarios of Conflict Development
Scenario One:
The conflict continues in the form of proxy wars, sabotage operations, and cyberattacks in regional countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Both sides place heavy emphasis on modern warfare, information, and cyber technologies, which are becoming primary tools in the next phase of the conflict.
Scenario Two:
Using information and technology tools to destabilize the opponent from within, especially amid economic crises, political discontent, or security threats. This includes data leaks, penetration of critical infrastructure, and intelligence operations.
Scenario Three:
Limited conflict management, with the possibility of a deliberate “incident” that could shift the geopolitical balance. This option becomes more likely if one of the parties finds itself in a position of weakness.
Scenario Four:
Expansion of the conflict to Iran’s neighboring regions, including Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Pakistan. The use of anti-regime groups and incitement of ethnic and religious minorities to apply maximum pressure is possible. Afghanistan could become a hidden battlefield of informational and cultural warfare, while Central Asia—due to its strategic location—may become a focal point in this geopolitical game.
Analytical Conclusion:
What stands out most is the gradual collapse of the concept of global peace. The dream of peace that emerged after World War II with the establishment of the United Nations and its affiliated institutions is now, more than ever, fading into a distant memory.
The UN Security Council has become a ceremonial, ineffective body, dominated by the will of great powers. The United Nations, due to budget cuts by the United States and other countries, has lost much of its operational and decision-making capacity. Today, the world is sinking into an unprecedented state of chaos, instability, and distrust.
Neither nuclear deterrence, nor economic interdependence, nor international agreements function as they once did. The existing chaos is the result of an illusion—the belief that global and lasting peace is possible.
Peace, it turns out, is only feasible in specific periods and only as a tool to serve the interests of specific actors. Evidence suggests that the bipolar world of the Cold War era—despite the threat of nuclear confrontation—was safer, more stable, and more predictable than the current global situation.
Now, in the transition to a post-bipolar world order, crisis hotspots have become instruments of power redistribution. The role of non-state actors, often operating under the influence of states, has added to the instability. Neither international organizations, nor legal charters and conventions, nor even moral norms are capable of countering the new dynamics of war and disorder. The world has entered a phase of engineered chaos—an era in which “peace” is no longer an end goal but merely a tool for acquiring and redistributing power.
