The New World Disorder

By Emilia Zankina and Rumiana Bachvarova

Weeks after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov visited Beijing calling on China to work together for a “multipolar, just, democratic world order”. Eighteen months later, the Russia-Ukraine war rages on with no prospects of return to peace, Nagorno-Karabakh is overtaken by Azeri forces, and a full-scale war exploded in Israel and the Gaza strip. And all the while, more and more refugees are flooding European countries fueling nationalist rhetoric and support for the radical right. If this is the new world order, it is anything but just and democratic.

Hamas’s attack on Israel will have lasting repercussion in the region and beyond and can only be understood within this broader geostrategic context. What are some of the impacts of this war on the international situation?

Euro-Atlantic allies overstretched

Even though the concept of a two-theater war has for long been present in U.S. military strategy, the recent American experience in Iraq and Afghanistan clearly demonstrated the inapplicability of this concept. With two full-fledged wars in Ukraine and in Israel, the U.S. finds itself in a double bind having to support two important allies at the same time. The Biden administration was already struggling getting support for yet another package of military aid to Ukraine. With the strong pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. this support becomes even more uncertain, as resources now need to be redirected to Israel. European countries have even less resources to spare. In addition, most have to deal with radical-right parties at home exploiting the situation for electoral gain and, in some countries, strong pro-Russian attitudes. Although Israel’s military capabilities are the largest in the region, Israel would need the support of its allies.

The benefits to Russia, Iran, and China

This double-bind could only benefit Russia and shift the balance in the war in Ukraine, in addition to increasing Russia’s leverage in other proxy conflicts such as Syria for example. President Zelenski accused Russia of wanting to precipitate conflict in the Middle East to undermine international support for Ukraine:“Russia is interested in triggering a war in the Middle East, so that a new source of pain and suffering could undermine world unity, increase discord and contradictions and thus help Russia destroy freedom in Europe”.

Similarly, the devastating attack on Israel gives an opportunity to Iran to grow its influence in the region. Iran has for long backed Hamas financially and military, although Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denied any involved of Iran in the conflict. Iran’s foreign minister Hossein Amirabdollahiantravelled to Beirut to discuss Israel's war against Hamas with the head of the Tehran-backed Lebanese armed group Hezbollah,which has launched its own cross-border attacks on Israel. Iran’s backing for Hamas and Hezbollah and their interest in deepening the current conflict has led U.S. and Qatari officialsto cut $6 billion in humanitarian aid. Future measures are possible as the conflict evolves, illustrating another aspect of the lasting repercussions of the war and the shift of priorities and the balance of power in the region.

China has taken a soft stance, refusing to condemn the Hamas attack and urging both sides to “exercise restraint” and embrace a “two-state solution.” Although such a position is in line with China’s “non-interference” policy”, it is not just based on principle. China is playing the long game of increasing its influence in the region and beyond and presenting itself as an alternative to U.S. dominance. Its rhetoric resonates not only with Arabs, but with other post-colonial nations in Africa where China’s economic presence has exponentially grown with ever larger investments in infrastructure and more.

Netanyahu and the Israeli governing coalition

The unexpected attack caught off guard Netanyahu and its government who draw their legitimacy on traditional values and a hawkish attitude. On the one hand, this can further delegitimize a government that has been facing large protests and decreasing support. Indeed, Netanyahu’s government is already facing additional discontent for its security failure. On the other hand, the rallying around the flag may push domestic issues and discontent to the side, giving Netanyahu and his ultra-right government coalition a second breath. The fact that Netanyahu is able to form a unity government with its largest opponent illustrates this effect.

What about Hamas?

Hamas seems to have adopted a rather short-sighted strategy, benefiting from domestic discontent in Israel and decreased caution to external threats while the government was over preoccupied with domestic opposition. Perhaps Hamas was thinking that the overall international instability could be an additional factor in providing an opportunity to seize the moment and was certainly counting on backing by its powerful allies like Iran. Such miscalculations would have a lasting negative effect on any prospects for peace in the region and a two-state solution which until now has been pushed by the U.S. and other allies. Given the brutality of the attack, Europe and U.S. alike are now firmly standing behind Israel. In the long run, Hamas has only to lose from this new configuration.

The mediators

The conflict has drawn other powerful players in the region who see themselves as mediators and hope for direct or indirect benefits or fear potential threats. The warming up of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia mediated by the Biden administration has already been quoted as one important factor causing the attack on Israel. Such plans are now on hold, as Saudi Arabia has expressed support for the Palestinian people and urged Israel to resume talks on a two-state solution.

Egypt supposedly issued a warning of the attack that Israel neglected. Egypt is now refusing a safe corridor for civilians from Gaza and is instead proposing the delivery of humanitarianaid. Egypt has been trying to contain the situation in Gaza which threatens a large-scale humanitarian crisis and a flood of refugees in Egypt and other neighboring countries.

Turkey has been trying to play the peacemaker in the Russia-Ukraine war and sees a similar opportunity for involvement in the Israel-Hamas war. Erdogan has been trying to negotiatehumanitarian aid for Gaza and the release of prisoners held by Hamas. His long-standing goal has been to increase Turkey’s influence as a major factor in the region using a variety of strategies – from sending troops to Syria and harboring Hamas fighters to improving ties with Israel. Mediation is much needed in a conflict that has caught millions of civilians on both sides, yet much harder following an attack that has hardened the position of Israel and its allies and hence the possibility of compromise. While Erdogan sees an opportunity to be seized, his balancing act may be very difficult to achieve.

Instability breeds instability

This new world “disorder” increases the threats for even more conflict, as small actors deem it profitable to take advantage of the chaos and preoccupation of big actors elsewhere. The recent military coup in Niger is but one example. The U.S. stopped aid to Niger after officially declaring the power take-over a coup. While this is an important signal, it is not likely to restore democratic governance. Although we are looking at distinct conflicts of different nature and scale, they are related in that instability breeds more instability. Moreover, analysts have already warned of the risk of spillover, as illustrated byHezbollah’s attacks and involvement in the conflict.

What the future holds

Unlike the Russia-Ukraine war, the war in Israel may be of short duration given the unequal power distribution of the adversaries. At the same time, these concurrent conflicts are bound to have lasting effects on the international order and the balance of power.