New realities of power in global politics

Business Recorder

6 hours ago

Recent geopolitical flashpoints — the four-day military engagement between India and Pakistan and the 12-day war between Iran and Israel—have unveiled two compelling realities. First, despite the shifting tides of multi-polarity, the United States remains the most consequential actor in global power politics. Second, the long-standing regional myths of invincibility and dominance by India's in South Asia and Israel's in the Middle East have been irreversibly challenged.
In both crises, the US emerged not only as a mediator but as the ultimate arbiter of dispute resolution and end of hostilities between the said warring nations. President Donald Trump's assertive and decisive phone calls, whether by official design or calculated spectacle, succeeded in arresting escalations that could have spiraled into regional wars - a feat that a world body like the UN could not have achieved so decisively and in so short a time. Washington's capacity to stop two simultaneous conflicts in volatile regions underscores its unmatched diplomatic leverage and military deterrence even in an era of a waning uni-polarity.
Equally significant, however, is what these conflicts revealed about the internal dynamics of their respective regions. In South Asia, the India-Pakistan skirmish exposed the limits of New Delhi's regional hegemony. The conflict demonstrated not only Pakistan's strategic resilience but also the geopolitical reality that India is not unilaterally dominant in the subcontinent. Both nations, despite their historical asymmetries in size and economy, were treated as equals by global powers in diplomatic terms. This is a notable departure from narratives of Indian supremacy and highlights the strategic agency of smaller states in the region.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East, the twelve-day Israel-Iran conflict similarly unsettled long-held perceptions. While Israel has historically enjoyed technological and military edge, Iran's retaliatory capacity, endurance, and regional alliances gave it a credible deterrent posture. The myth of Israel's absolute military superiority took a hit—not necessarily in battlefield metrics, but in the psychological and diplomatic perceptions that govern modern deterrence theory. Iran showed it could absorb strikes, retaliate meaningfully, and force negotiations—all while maintaining a regional influence structure through proxies.
In the wake of the recent India-Pakistan military standoff and the 12-day Israel-Iran war, the global spotlight focused not only on the crisis resolution but also on the visible absence of direct intervention from China and Russia—two major global powers often seen as the principal challengers to US influence. Despite their strategic relationships with Pakistan and Iran respectively, Beijing and Moscow exercised strategic restraint.
The absence of direct Chinese and Russian intervention in support of Pakistan and Iran is perhaps not a sign of weakness—it is a calculated strategic posture consistent with their long-term vision of a multi-polar world. Their restraint reflects an understanding that global influence in the 21st century is shaped as much by stability, economic entrenchment, and ideological appeal as by military might.
China and Russia prioritize strategic stability over tactical opportunism, particularly in regions where overt engagement could spiral into uncontrollable escalation. Both powers prefer the doctrine of strategic patience and to leverage the US burden to preserve their influence through non-military tools such as diplomacy, infrastructure investment, arms sales, and cyber presence. Also, China's risk calculus avoids getting embroiled in wars that could endanger its global economic interests or supply chains. This strategy has paid off in China's rise as the second biggest economy of the world. It is important to note that China backed Pakistan by providing it with the means of air force and missile superiority over India and Iran with missile superiority over Israel — which proved to be a turning point in both the said conflicts. Additionally, Russia, heavily engaged in Ukraine and under severe Western sanctions, seeks to avoid opening a second front or worsening its diplomatic isolation.
In an era where multi-polarity is often taken as a given, recent history just offered a blunt reality check: the United States still sits at the top of the global power pyramid. China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the growing BRICS bloc may be reshaping economic partnerships, but when conflict erupts, it's still Washington—not Beijing or Moscow—that the world turns to. While critics will debate whether Trump's methods are sustainable, the facts on the ground are clear: the global order may be evolving, but America's authority—particularly in moments of crisis—remains unchallenged. China is just not yet ready to overtly exercise its authority into the internal affairs of other countries nor into their wars or conflicts. Much of the same holds true for Russia.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025