Today, when the history process ceased to be artificially flattened like it was during the Cold War or right after its ending, independent states of the multipolar world, such as Iran and Israel, will act only in their own interests.
One of the most interesting effects of international politics of the second half 20th century was the utmost simplification of this hard-to-manage activity not just in the public domain, but also for many government leaders. This perception became especially strong after the Cold War when the global affairs resembled a plot of a mediocre Hollywood blockbuster.
Multipolarity and diversity of today’s world, which Russia is actively promoting as part of its interests, should cure us of this child disease. And get us back to understand that the relationship of nations where human lives are always at stake is, mostly, a very hard thing to manage and is never linear, of course, when sovereign and solid states are concerned.
Today in the Middle East we see the examples confirming that one should not expect simple scenarios from international politics. The retaliatory strike from Iran in response to Israel’s missile attack against the Iranian consulate in Syria did not lead to immediate destructive consequences and did not become an invitation to a large-scale escalation. However, we still do not know what Israel will do in response: its leaders also act under the influence of various coercions, although many onlookers are expressing doubt that Tel-Aviv is ready for a large-scale war indeed. It is obvious that the policies of both powers, as of their neighbours in the region, is governed by the beliefs, which are not easy to understand without a deep-dive in their goal-setting. Well, the latter is the hardest of all to do.
First, because proper prediction of possible steps of another state, including your enemies, is only possible through empathy of sorts, or being able to put yourself in their place. This does not at all mean to agree with the position of others or even accept its mere existence. In foreign policy, it does not even mean sympathy: we cannot sympathise with our foes. And we do not have to do so. However, empathy helps you get rid of some erroneous judgments, which can cost human lives in global politics. Well, people’s empathy skill is usually quite poor, and those speaking publicly of international affairs are not an exception.
Second, the ability to reasonably evaluate the steps of states, which are different, gives a comparatively deep and comprehensive understanding of their culture and history. Again, Iran is a civilization with a history dating back thousands of years, which has seen an immense number of bright victories and tragic defeats. Like China and India, it sees the world deep in its own way. Most of us cannot reach the understanding of the inner logics behind the decisions taken in Tehran in response to another hit of Israel or its American allies.
It was the same in August 2022 when everyone was looking with bewilderment at China’s cautious behaviour in response to the provocative visit to Taiwan of the head of the American Congress. The fact that the Chinese authorities did not opt for an escalation after numerous warnings addressed to the US was taken as a show of weakness. But everything the official Beijing did was not treated as a weakness in the Chinese society. What we understand is that the Chinese authorities value the opinion of its own people, while they do not care at all about how its decisions are rated by foreigners, don’t we? Well, at least we should, considering that Russia’s government also believes that only its citizens’ opinion is important.
The Iranian authorities also consider which response to Israel’s actions will be accepted by the society and which reaction it will treat as excessive accounting for the current opposition scale. The majority or Iranians would not necessarily want an open confrontation with Israel or US and allies behind its back.
At the same time, Tehran’s restrained response sent the ball to the side of its enemies, testing, as specialists write, the capabilities of Israel’s anti-ballistic missile defence, and made a stir in the West. For example, truth be told, Washington does not want a major war in the Middle East now. This could cause their already diminishing capacities pulling apart even greater along many directions. Apparently, Iran treats its conflict with Israel strategically, believing it will anyway end in a demise of the Jewish state sooner or later, so there is absolutely no point in rushing ahead and sticking its chin out.
Israel is in a different position. It is, as one smart foreigner put it, a copy of eastern European nationalism of the early XX century, with all the specific features that come with this. But even in this case the level of opportunism is not likely to be so strong as to rush into a large-scale conflict.
Both these two nations and neighbouring Arabs are acting in line with their culture code and the subjective view on what they need for a victory. Even more so today, when the history process ceased to be artificially flattened like it was during the Cold War or right after its ending. This last thing is creating a new international framework, and its existence is really challenging to understand in its blossoming complexity. Moreover, there is neither the time nor the intellectual capacities at the age when any judgements fade away so fast.
However, onlookers are not alone: states of the region are still getting used to the new international modalities. And the main factor, which defines whether we like this status in the global politics is the weakening of the US. Washington used to hope to replace the utopian ‘world government’. It even had quite solid resources to do it. But it all was gone very quickly. Their strength depleted and now the Americans can only control its closest satellites in Europe. And Kiev’s regime, of course. Here, any existence of statehood is out of the question though.
At the same time, none other power is ready to replace America at its role of the strongest global player. And Russia is not striving for that and does not have enough resources. Maybe China would want to take America’s place at the helm of the global politics, yet it does not have the strength and determination to do so either. And, overall, the possession of nuclear weapons is no longer a tool for an easy change of leaders. As a result, US is getting weaker, but no one can just move it from their high standing. International politics is becoming really dynamic. Many are afraid of this, but they will have to get used to it.
In this multipolar world, states preserving their sovereignty will not have permanent allies in a traditional sense. Or they will have very few of them, like Russia, which can rely only on Belarus. Nothing can be said of America’s allies, as NATO members are not sovereign in their military planning, and, therefore, are not fully valid states.
Like Iran and Israel, independent states of the multipolar world will act only in their own interests, take decisions based on their cultural traditions and interior policies. The smartest thing would be to reject any widely recognized beliefs regarding what steps states should normally take.