Seevan Saeed, in his article “The Crises in the Middle East: Reshaping the Region’s Geopolitical Landscape and Altering the Global Order,” published in the Asian Review of Political Economy (Volume 4, 2025), argues that the ongoing crises across the Middle East, especially since the October 2023 Hamas-Israel conflict, are not just regional events, but part of a wider transformation in the global order.
Saeed presents the Middle East as both a setting and a tool in the struggle between a fading unipolar system, led by the United States, and an emerging multipolar world shaped by China, Russia, and the Global South. Drawing on history, power shifts, and Western strategic errors, he shows how economic, military, and diplomatic changes in the region are combining to weaken long-standing dominance. The main idea is that the Middle East is no longer just a site of proxy wars or sectarian tensions, but a key space where the future shape of world order is being decided.
The article begins with the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, which Saeed sees as a turning point. The scale and timing of the attack exposed the limits of Israel’s military strength and the failure of Western-led peace efforts. But more crucially, the international response, especially America’s clear double standard between Gaza and Ukraine, shook the image of the United States as a fair global leader. At the same time, China and Russia began using the crisis to promote their own model of global order, one based on multipolarity, state sovereignty, and regional balance. Forums like BRICS+ have become more important in this new approach.
Saeed argues that this shift is not only about ideas or values. It is happening through real changes in economic links, military power, and diplomatic relations. On the economic side, China’s Belt and Road Initiative is seen as a challenge to Western-led financial systems. It offers infrastructure and trade options that do not depend on European or American institutions. While some critics warn of debt traps and lack of openness, Saeed points out that the very fact these alternatives exist is already weakening the West’s hold on global finance.
Militarily, the piece highlights how America’s ability to use hard power in the Middle East has declined. The US withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, and its weak performance in Syria, show a lack of clear strategy. In contrast, Russia’s ongoing presence in Syria, its support for the Assad regime, and its growing security ties in the region are signs of a slower but more focused strategy. China, though less active in military terms, has built strong relationships with nearly all major countries in the region, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Its approach of quiet diplomacy is increasingly welcomed in a region tired of conflict.
Saeed also focuses on unresolved national issues, especially the Palestinian and Kurdish questions. These, he argues, reveal both the weakness of postcolonial state-building and the risk of renewed violence. The Palestinian struggle is not just about land or human rights, but a moral and political test for the global community. The West’s failure to act decisively in Gaza, despite the humanitarian disaster, has pushed much of the Global South further away from the US and its allies. At the same time, the Kurdish issue, which spans Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, remains a source of tension that could quickly worsen if left unaddressed.
Importantly, the article doesn’t just focus on states. Armed non-state groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Syrian Democratic Forces are treated as central players. These groups are no longer simply pawns in larger games, they have their own power and agendas, and often shape how states behave. Saeed sees their rise as both a result of weak states and a sign that traditional ideas of sovereignty are under pressure.
One of the article’s strongest claims is that the Middle East is not only being shaped by world politics, but is helping to shape it. The Arab-Israeli conflict is no longer isolated, it has the potential to trigger a much wider breakdown of the current international system. Saeed warns that if the war in Gaza expands to include actors like Iran or Hezbollah, it could badly damage what remains of Western-led order. He sees little chance of a successful two-state solution and suggests instead a single, democratic, secular state that would give equal rights to Jews and Arabs. Though this idea is controversial, he argues it is more realistic than continuing the cycle of violence and exceptionalism.
Throughout the article, Saeed returns to a broader point: the crises in the Middle East are part of a deeper global shift. The United States can no longer maintain its influence without strong and credible partners. Yet its record, supporting dictators, misusing human rights rhetoric, and overextending militarily, has left it isolated. Meanwhile, China and Russia, despite their own issues, have positioned themselves as defenders of state sovereignty and multipolarism. Whether this will lead to a new global consensus is unclear, but Saeed believes that global perceptions of legitimacy are already changing.
In the end, this article offers a wide-ranging and timely rethinking of the Middle East’s place in world politics. Saeed argues that the region should not be seen as a passive battlefield for great powers, but as an active site where the next world order is being forged. With conflicts deepening and alliances shifting, what happens in the Middle East may well shape the future of global power and legitimacy far beyond its borders.
