Daily The Patriot

The crises that reinforced American primacy

News Desk

News Desk

By Sardar Khan Niazi

Recent geopolitical flare-ups–the brief but intense four-day military engagement between India and Pakistan, and the 12-day war between Israel and Iran–have offered the world more than just a glimpse into regional volatility. They have exposed two uncomfortable yet undeniable truths. First, despite the growing chorus heralding a multi-polar world, the United States remains the most consequential actor in global power politics. Second, the long-standing myths of unassailable Indian dominance in South Asia and Israel in the Middle East stand dented. In both crises, Washington stepped in as the ultimate arbiter. President Donald Trump’s interventionist diplomacy, whether strategic or performative, played a decisive role in halting escalations that could have easily spiraled into full-fledged wars. That the US could simultaneously de-escalate two separate flashpoints in two of the world’s most volatile regions is a stark reminder of its unmatched diplomatic advantage and military deterrence. This reality is especially sobering in an era when American hegemony is said to be in decline. The United Nations, while valuable as a global forum, has once again shown itself to be structurally too weak and diplomatically too fragmented to enforce peace swiftly. China and Russia, though vocal about building a multi-polar order, opted for strategic silence rather than overt involvement. Equally telling were the internal lessons from these conflicts. The South Asian standoff exposed the limits of India’s regional dominance. While New Delhi has long been seen particularly in Western narratives as the natural hegemon of South Asia, the events revealed a different picture. Pakistan’s response demonstrated not only military resilience but also diplomatic stature. For the first time in recent memory, global powers treated both South Asian rivals as strategic equals. That perception shift, however nuanced, chips away at the myth of India’s unilateral ascendancy in the subcontinent. A similar recalibration occurred in the Middle East. Israel, long viewed as militarily invincible in the region, found itself facing a far more prepared and resilient Iran. While Israel retains technological superiority, Iran demonstrated an ability to absorb strikes, retaliate effectively, and sustain pressure through regional proxies. It was not a defeat for Israel but it certainly was not a reaffirmation of its unquestioned dominance either. The psychological balance that underpins deterrence in the region has shifted. Notably absent from both these theatres of crisis were overt actions from China and Russia. Both nations have deep strategic ties—Beijing with Pakistan and Tehran, Moscow with Tehran—but chose to exercise restraint. This is not a sign of irrelevance but of long-term strategic calculation. For China, getting embroiled in high-stakes regional conflicts would jeopardize its economic interests and global supply chains. For Russia, already entangled in Ukraine and burdened by Western sanctions, the appetite for a new front is understandably low. This approach–strategic patience, rather than tactical adventurism–allows Beijing and Moscow to build influence through other means: infrastructure investment, arms sales, cyber capabilities, and economic entrenchment. Still, when missiles fly and the world teeters on the edge of war, it is not the Belt and Road Initiative or BRICS that take center stage. The world turns to Washington. China’s quiet support–provision of air and missile technologies to Pakistan and Iran–did shape the battlefield calculus. However, the absence of open intervention signals Beijing’s reluctance to act as a global security guarantor. For now, at least, China prefers to shape the global order through commerce rather than conflict. In the end, these crises served as a global litmus test. Despite claims to the contrary, the United States still occupies the apex of the international order. The world may be moving toward multi-polarity, but when it comes to crisis resolution, America remains the indispensable power.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *