The rise and fall of empires are an enduring feature of the historical cycle. Karl Marx conceptualized this phenomenon as historical determinism. While Marx assigns primacy to structural forces like geography, economics, and material conditions, he underestimates the decisive role of human agency in shaping outcomes. History may set the stage, but it is leadership that ultimately determines whether a state rises, stagnates, or declines.
In the global order, where states act as primary agents, the same logic applies. States that are governed with accountability, strategic clarity, and foresight tend to consolidate power. Those that succumb to poor governance, suppress accountability, and elevate incompetent or self-serving leadership inevitably enter a phase of decline. The current trajectories of the United States and Israel are not accidents of history; they are direct consequences of flawed human agency shaping the destiny of these states and, by extension, the wider world.
The United States continues to be perceived as the most powerful country in the world, possessing unmatched military reach, technological depth, and institutional capacity. Yet this perception is increasingly detached from reality. It can be argued with conviction that since 2016, China has emerged as the most economically resilient, technologically advanced, and strategically coherent power. Analysts still anchored in the assumptions of the previous order struggle to acknowledge this shift. Ironically, this misreading is reinforced by China itself through its deliberate posture of restraint, diplomatic humility, and refusal to engage in overt military coercion against weaker states. This, however, warrants a more detailed discussion elsewhere.
Returning to the central argument, even a seemingly dominant power can become strategically disoriented. Israel, widely regarded as the most militarily capable state in the Middle East and a key partner of the United States, reflects a similar pattern. Both states today exhibit symptoms of strategic drift driven not by structural weakness but by failures of leadership.
It is particularly striking that Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu who are products of privilege and elite environments have presided over this phase. Access to power and education has not translated into strategic wisdom. On the contrary, their leadership has been marked by impulsiveness, rhetorical excess, and a personalization of statecraft that undermines institutional credibility. Such leadership, in an era defined by complexity and interdependence, is not merely inadequate—it is dangerous.
Israel’s structural fragility compounds these risks. Its long-term viability has been closely tied to the unquestioned supremacy of the United States. As that supremacy is challenged, Israel’s strategic environment becomes increasingly uncertain. The ongoing geopolitical shift, accelerated by recent conflicts, is eroding the foundations upon which Israeli security has historically rested.
Prior to the recent conflict with Iran, much of the Arab world perceived Iran as the principal threat. That perception is now undergoing a rapid transformation. The war has exposed a different reality: that the policies and actions of the United States and Israel are increasingly seen as central drivers of regional instability. The limited effectiveness of U.S. military deployments despite their extensive presence in the Gulf has raised serious doubts about their utility. While regional states faced drone and missile threats, the overwhelming priority of the United States remained the protection of Israeli interests. This imbalance has not gone unnoticed.
Leadership conduct has further aggravated the situation. Public rhetoric, particularly when dismissive of allies or lacking diplomatic discipline, erodes credibility. As a result, both Europe and the Middle East are reassessing their strategic orientations, exploring deeper engagement with emerging powers such as China and Russia, while also recognizing the growing relevance of regional actors like Pakistan.
Pakistan’s role in the current crisis has exposed the limitations of India’s global standing. In a display widely viewed as diplomatically tone-deaf, Narendra Modi visited Israel shortly before the escalation and openly embraced Benjamin Netanyahu—a figure increasingly criticized across much of the world. This was not strategic signaling; it was a misreading of the global mood.
India’s decision to position itself as a subordinate partner within a U.S.-led framework aimed at countering China and Pakistan has come at a cost. Rather than emerging as an independent pole of power, it risks being reduced to a tactical instrument in a larger geopolitical contest. This has resulted in diplomatic embarrassment and diminished strategic autonomy. Even critical commentary from Donald Trump regarding India’s performance in its regional engagements has underscored this perception.
By contrast, Pakistan’s acceptance by major powers like United States, China, and Iran as a potential mediator reflects a significant shift in diplomatic weight. This is not an isolated development but part of a longer historical pattern, including Pakistan’s role in facilitating earlier strategic breakthroughs between USA and China in 1970s. It signals a redistribution of influence in which Pakistan is emerging as a credible and constructive actor.
India’s response, including remarks by Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, has at times appeared reactive and lacking diplomatic finesse, reinforcing perceptions of strategic frustration. The contrast with Pakistan’s calibrated approach is stark and underscores the enduring importance of leadership quality in determining global relevance. Modi’s poorly timed visit to Israel just before the outbreak of war has further eroded the positioning of India at the global level.
Iran’s conduct in the war has been equally consequential. It has demonstrated how a relatively weak power can challenge stronger adversaries through strategic innovation, technological adaptation, and disciplined execution. This conflict will likely be studied for years in the military schools as a case of asymmetric warfare.
At a broader level, the conflict has accelerated the fragmentation of the global order. It has exposed deepening divides and underscored the emergence of alternative centers of power. For China, the crisis has served as an opportunity to demonstrate its economic strength, technological capability, and diplomatic reach as a viable alternative to Western dominance. Increasingly, parts of the international community are reassessing the role of the United States viewing it not as a guarantor of stability but, at times, as a source of instability while turning toward China as part of the solution. The traditional allies of USA like Europe and Canada are also looking towards China as a strategic partner.
The United States, meanwhile, faces mounting internal challenges. Political polarization, institutional strain, and demographic shifts are testing the resilience of its system. If current trends persist, the risk of deep internal conflict cannot be dismissed. The durability of American federalism long considered a strength may come under unprecedented pressure in the coming decades. This is particularly important if USA has another Trump styled impulsive President.
For Pakistan, the emerging global order presents a historic opportunity. With coherent political direction and sustained economic reform, Pakistan can position itself as a major power within the next decade. Over a longer horizon, disciplined governance and strategic foresight could elevate it to the rank of a great power. The lesson, once again, is clear: while history creates possibilities, it is human agency that determines outcomes.
