At the summits of the world economy, a growing sense emerged that a breaking point had been reached. "Are we drifting towards World War III?" queried the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times likened the moment to 1945 or 1989, while Der Spiegel asserted, "The war in Gaza was the final nail in the coffin of the Western-dominated world order," in the aftermath of the Hamas offensive and Israel's forceful response in Gaza.

WILL WORLD WAR III BREAK OUT?

This question first arose in the context of the Israel-Hamas war. Friedman, in the New York Times, framed the situation in terms of challenges to US hegemony: "Ukraine wanted to join NATO, but Russia intervened. Israel sought to join the New Middle East, but Iran intervened." Indeed, the timing and repercussions of the Hamas attack signal the troubling developments for the US.

The economic ties between Israel and the Arab Emirates, which had been maturing over time, were evolving into diplomatic relations. Saudi Arabia was on the verge of formalizing its ties with Israel. As this process, which relegated the Palestinian issue to the background, advanced, Iran's influence in the region would decline.

Iran, with genuine strategic depth via its proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Gaza, could not be expected to remain passive in the face of this "New Middle East" initiative. Iran seized the opportunity to wage proxy wars against the EU and Israel across these regions. Rockets from Houthi and Hezbollah in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and attacks on US assets in Iraq indicate that Iran has already begun to exploit this opening. If the speculations about Russia's Wagner legion providing air defense services to Hezbollah in Lebanon (as reported by WSJ) materialize, and if Israel's government, influenced by right-wing academics advocating for a strike on Iran, and some ministers mulling over the "nuclear option" (as reported by Haaretz), take action, the conflict could rapidly escalate regionally and even globally.

Alignments that are already in motion could readily accommodate such an escalation: Malaysia and China aligning with the Palestinian cause, while India's Hindu nationalist government sides with Israel. Faced with the deepening genocide under Israeli aggression, the "Global South" predominantly calls for a "ceasefire," while the US, UK, and EU refrain from endorsing the call. Arab nations are inevitably suspending their efforts to foster closer ties with Israel. The US's plan to withdraw from the Middle East and redirect its focus towards competition with China is being disrupted.

THE LAST NAIL IN THE COFFIN

Developments that attest to the depletion of US "soft power" capacity, as well as that of the West, corroborate Spiegel's assessment. The stance of the US and the West on the Gaza genocide reinforces the perception among "Global South" populations that "white lives are evidently more valuable" and fosters a belief in the hypocrisy of the US and the West. Some commentators underscored this hypocrisy, noting that "the West may not adhere to the rules it has set." As Munchau pointed out in The New Statesman, "Countries may tolerate Western sanctions, but they cannot endure moralizing."

Meanwhile, two significant events unfolded: Firstly, US Secretary of State Blinken sought to limit Al Jazeera's coverage of Gaza through discussions with Qatar, and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was approached to permit a brief humanitarian ceasefire, but these efforts were in vain. As Blinken roamed the capitals of Middle Eastern countries, a rebellion stirred within foreign bureaucracies against the "blank check" extended to Israel. The fact that both European populations and governments of the "Global South," particularly Malaysia in the Asia-Pacific region, clamored for a ceasefire and began speaking of "genocide," raised considerable concerns among ministry experts. Secondly, the Hamas-Israel conflict and the ensuing genocide in Gaza revealed a drastic reduction in the United Nations' sway and a complete erosion of the United States' ability to steer the UN.

Now, bereft of "soft power," the US-Western bloc finds itself with no alternative but to resort to force in order to uphold the existing order. This possibility fuels apprehension about "World War III."