The need for national leaderships to rally towards countering geopolitical multi-polarity in the face of unfolding consequences stemming from the correlation of systemic regional conflicts that aim to threaten the historically precedented global rules based international order.
As one examines the geo-strategic landscape at present engulfing the waters from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, the Black Sea and beyond, echoes of the local conflicts that predicated the First World War are a far closer geopolitical ‘peer‘ in juxtaposition to the modern Cold War era. A greater level of interlinkages exist today ranging from commerce to technology and even spanning military alliance structures where once in the Cold War, two decidedly separate systems existed, currently, solely one system exists and it may only withstand a single victor. As such, for the allied community of nations that seek to maintain the rules based established international system, apolitical governance coupled with an emphasis on shared mutual & regional security is paramount. A unified pan-state doctrine embedded into the constitutions of nations across the Eastern Mediterranean to the Middle East is imperative in order to ensure that on a global scale both NATO interests are secure as well as the idiosyncratic objectives of broader non-member nation states.
Concerns shared by many as per machinations deriving either directly or via proxy from regional threats such as the Islamic republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and on a wider basis the People‘s Republic of China must be curtailed under novel military & clandestine command structures. Our operational success as per both NATO and the Allied Community of Nations, will be attained via the synchronicity of sub-divisions of CENTCOM in the Middle East executing mutual objectives with innovative regional formations that must be designated as per a MEDCOM spanning the Mediterranean and connecting these units with the presently active multi-national Taskforce that aims to maintain the status quo in the Red Sea to ensure undisrupted trade once again via the auspices of the United States, whilst functioning in unison with proximal pan-continental powers. The conflict in Israel, where many outsiders may seek to view it as an existential war with historical traits, is in fact a wider manifestation of Russia‘s desire to open further fronts with the view to undermine the valiant campaign led by Ukrainian troops to liberate their nation. ‘Cross-Conflict’ correlation continues to permeate also via Iran‘s choice to utilize internationally outlawed proxy groups to bolster its standing amongst the populaces where Sunni-Shia fault lines exist in order to reposition itself after years of internal unrest that have affected Tehran‘s ability to even keep control over their own populace which yearns for change (inclusive of the Houthis who have now become internationally legitimate threats which must be targeted directly). These regional agitators are seconded to the machinations of the People‘s Republic of China who seeks to assess the international consensus & consequences of the lawless attacks faced by trade vessels passing via the Red Sea to key destinations as it weighs its own desperate attempt at upending the global ‘order’ which would likely arrive via a CCP blockage around Taipei whereby with the high level of readiness, equipment and fortifications on hand for the Taiwanese, Beijing would otherwise struggle with an amphibious approach.
The United States over successive decades as well as eras, underscored its own role of international ‘guarantor’ which involved both the placement of ground troops as well as their utilization at the onset of regional conflict with distinct strategic achievements for global security. The success of US hegemony even went so far as to see the mere threat of attacks on itself or an ally via ‘bad actor’ nations to be suffice with regard to preemptive wider wars which could have had greater regional and geopolitical consequences, if historically these threats had been left unattended, spanning from the Second World War and progressing to the Gulf Wars during the decades encompassing the 90s and 00s. The concept of a multipolar world is now being touted repeatedly across the media & policy making landscape however in essence the majority of “Atlanticist-aligned” nations rightly remain committed to the concept of Pax-Americana.
Modern ‘Atlanticist’ nation states prioritize being within a framework of uninhibited trade (for fear of lack thereof), collective security uniformity with regard to the threat posed by China and Regional actors such as Russia and Iran, where applicable even having ‘alliances within alliances‘ aimed at thwarting specific eventualities which have even made nations that held a level of animosity for one another officially (whilst, of course, still closely cooperating despite this including in decades prior), come together via structures such as the Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords, be that from the perspective of the Israeli leadership or the Gulf monarchies themselves, must ensure that the strengthening of ties, as presently established at the higher tiers of military, intelligence, commercial and diplomatic echelons are communicated effectively namely in a manner that is both comprehensive and responsive to the understanding of their respective populaces. Controlling the narrative upon the local populace via both Rule of Law as well as ‘State-think’ is essential to ensure that the citizenry understands that their civil role in abiding by the Abraham Accords as well as their own national leadership is paramount to their overall quality of life and daily security. Translating the resilience of the Accords, as demonstrated at the executive level between countries that are party to the agreements to this day, which has endured overtly and covertly since October 7th, to encompass the local populaces in the Middle East remains an area that must be expanded on by member states.
As regional conflicts intensify, local sentiment either organically or by subversion drives the leadership of key nation states towards political ‘off-ramps‘ with international consequences and the idea of a multi-faceted global power diorama becomes touted as a norm by inconsequential overseas administrations, deemed at best as “placeholders”, who seek a self-fulfilling prophecy (differentiating between the US‘s desire to prioritize key regions and nations as per national interests which is being executed by the State Department presently, an aspect often mistaken for worldwide non-aligned multi-polarity). As we approach the 2030s, nation states and their administrations are at risk of discovering that the advent of the United States as the singular ‘Great Power‘ upon the collapse of the USSR, was actually more than an idiom of ‘one nation above all‘ though rather via its manifestation of international continuity in physical form, reinforced by the strength of its military and the liquidity of its currency, the only lasting doctrine to remain in its purity, pax-Americana, as Emperor Augustus himself would have heralded whilst simultaneously remarking to “be careful for what one wishes for”….
[U.S. Navy photo, via Wikimedia Commons]
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
Alp Sevimlisoy is an internationally published geopolitical strategist & national security expert on NATO’s role within the Mediterranean, focusing on regional unionism and defense policy and a Millennium Fellow at the Atlantic Council headquartered in Washington, DC. Alp Sevimlisoy’s opinion-editorials have been regularly published in The Hill, The Daily Express, The National Interest, South China Morning Post, Real Clear Defense, Geopolitical Monitor and Israel Hayom. Alp Sevimlisoy has been featured by Newsweek, The Hill, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, The Sun, The Daily Mirror, Politico, Voice of America, the National Journal, Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and the Centre for the National Interest (CFTNI).
