The risk of global conflict has increased to its highest level in decades because of recent events in the Middle East. The targeted killings of Hamas leaders in Tehran and Beirut, coupled with Hezbollah and Houthi bombings in Israel, have brought the region to a major crossroad. This complex web of tensions threatens to entangle Iran, China, Russia, and the United States, potentially igniting a broader international conflict.
Energy is the foundation that connects everything, and oil is central to nearly every issue in the Middle East. Iran, Russia, and China grasp this reality. Israel, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt get more than half of their oil from directly or indirectly from Russia, and about one-third from OPEC countries.
The West seems to have lost the energy plot in what Niall Ferguson recently called a “bizarre ideology that no one really believes in.”
He’s partly right but his position is narrow because it ignores the connection between geopolitics and climate. Militaries are responsible for 5.5 percent of global emissions while passenger cars account for about 8% of global CO2 emissions. As geopolitical conflict escalates, the effort to reduce emissions suffers because the two are connected.
A recent estimate suggests 175 million tons of CO2 equivalent emissions have resulted from the first two years of fighting in Ukraine (Figure 1). Another report indicates a comparable volume for the Gaza War based on only the first sixty days of conflict.
The combined effect of the Ukraine conflict and the Gaza situation erases all emission reductions from electric vehicles replacing internal combustion vehicles for the years 2024 through 2027 based on projections from the International Energy Agency.
Many believe that AI (artificial intelligence) can offer innovative solutions to complex environmental challenges, including climate change, or at least mitigate associated risks. However, it is likely that Jevons Paradox will undermine this expectation. In the nineteenth century, British economist William Stanley Jevons observed that improvements in efficiency, and the lower costs they bring, often lead to an overall increase in resource consumption, rather than a decrease (Figure 2).
In fact, the increased demand for semiconductors, cloud server capacity, internet, sensors, and robotics will probably result in significant increases in material and energy consumption.
Jevon’s Paradox, unfortunately, also applies to war and geopolitics. The integration of AI into warfare increases the likelihood of conflicts due to several factors: its cost-effectiveness, autonomous decision-making capabilities, enhanced precision in targeting, and the heightened risk of unintended escalation of hostilities.
The Houthi attacks on refineries, shipping and, more recently, on civilian targets in Tel Aviv underscore how geopolitics have changed for the worse. Their use of low-cost drones, ballistic missiles, and maritime mines have caused significant damage and disruption. The USS Eisenhower quietly returned to the United States in July after failing to contain the Houthis in the Red Sea.
Choosing a historical beginning point for analysis is often referred to as “periodization.” Explanations of the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts often start with events from this decade, or sometimes even trace back to the aftermath of the First or Second World War. We must go even farther back to the period of European expansion and colonialization.
That was the time of the great game of global trade. In the five centuries before World War I, European nations achieved global dominance by controlling vital trade routes, forming strategic alliances, and leveraging economic power to sway global trade dynamics. Colonial powers established monopolies over raw materials, ensuring that their economic policies dictated global commerce. The colonial system was a complex web of economic strategies aimed at reinforcing the power of the colonial masters while extracting maximum value from the colonies.
There is a common fallacy that all people in the world are essentially the same and want similar things despite having different histories and cultures. That may be true on some psychological or spiritual level but it is seldom a useful approach to political analysis.
The axis of upheaval—comprising Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea—represents a coalition of states united in their dissatisfaction with the current international system.
Moscow is leading this axis. The invasion of Ukraine marked a pivotal moment in Putin’s ongoing campaign against the West. His resolve has intensified, targeting not just Ukraine but the entire global order.
The adversaries of the current world order made a significant display of their intentions in 2022. They are now capitalizing on the increasing global violence, feeling emboldened by the rising tide of conflict.
Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea have been intensifying their defense-industrial cooperation. Russia has given Iran advanced aircraft, air defense systems, and cyber capabilities to strengthen its defense against U.S. or Israeli attacks. In return for North Korea’s military support and ammunition, Pyongyang expects to obtain advanced space, missile, and submarine technologies from Moscow. Ukrainian forces have found Chinese parts in drones and tank fire control systems, which previously used Western-made components.
In China, Russia, and Iran, propaganda ministries have been conditioning their populations for a time of war, significant sacrifices, and existential struggle. Criticism of the U.S. for its ongoing support of Israel—using the Gaza conflict to paint Washington as a destabilizing and domineering global force—is a narrative that resonates strongly in parts of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. A key takeaway for these nations from the Ukraine war is the perceived weakness and fragility of the U.S. defense-industrial base.
Americans and some of their political leaders believe that the U.S. can project enough power to succeed in great-power competitions because, as Joe Biden recently said, “we’re the United States of America for God’s sake.”
Israel must have known that killing Ismail Haniyeh—Hamas’ top political leader—in Teheran would provoke an attack from Iran and escalate the Middle East conflict. Haaretz‘s Alon Pinkas has suggested that Netanyahu intentionally provoked this escalation, hoping for a larger conflict with Iran that would inevitably draw the United States into the fray.
In 1978, Alexander Solzhenitsyn described what he called the “anguish of a divided world.”
The world now awaits Iran’s inevitable attack on Israel. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken expects that Iran and Hezbollah might launch an attack on Israel within the next 24 to 48 hours.
While many propose solutions, they often overlook the inextricable links between geopolitics, natural resources, and the environment. The long history of perceived inequality and grievances that spans half the globe is also frequently ignored. The events and incidents of July and August are mere props on a much larger stage, reflecting deeper, enduring tensions.