Western Leaders are Failing. It’s Time for a Paradigm Shift.

A paradigm shift in international relations refers to a fundamental change in the underlying assumptions, principles, or models that guide our understanding of global politics. Such shifts often arise from significant events, emerging challenges, or changes in power dynamics, prompting a re-evaluation of dominant theories and worldviews. For instance, Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History and the Last Man” suggested that the end of the Cold War marked the triumph of liberal democracy as the ultimate form of governance, reshaping the discourse and practice of international relations. Conversely, Samuel Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” posited that cultural and civilizational differences, rather than ideological conflicts, would shape the future of international relations. Huntington argued that the world would be characterized by clashes between different civilizations, leading to enduring tensions and conflicts. The rise of identity politics, populism, religious extremism, and terrorism underscores the relevance of Huntington’s thesis and the limited scope of Fukuyama’s original argument. The October 7th attack on Israel by Hamas and the global response to the ensuing crisis should prompt policymakers in the West to accept a profound paradigm shift.

The Israeli Perspective: A Fundamental Reckoning

The assault on Israel on October 7th, 2023, triggered a fundamental reassessment of existential threats and strategic imperatives within Israeli society. It shattered the illusion of post-1967 stability and revived fears reminiscent of the nation’s founding in 1948. Israelis now face an existential war they must win. The paradigm of a Two-State Solution, long advocated by Western diplomats, lies in tatters. The Israeli parliament voted yesterday against the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. This isn’t due to a loss of the desire for peace among Israelis but a loss of belief in a willing and capable Palestinian partner for peace. Past territorial compromises have led to more violence, not peace. The refusal of Palestinian leaders to denounce Hamas and the widespread support for the terrorist organization among Palestinians highlight the inherent contradiction within the old paradigm of “land for peace.” The realization that Hamas is a legitimate reflection of Palestinian aspirations has caused Israelis to question the viability of a negotiated settlement at this time.

The Abraham Accords offered a new paradigm for the Middle East but were downplayed by the Biden administration for partisan politics and all but ignored by Europeans for pride and sanctimony. This response underscores the necessity for a paradigm shift.

The Regional Chessboard: A Clash of Hegemonic Ambitions

The October 7th attack also highlights broader regional power struggles. Iran’s backing of Hamas reveals its hegemonic ambitions and destabilizing influence in the Middle East. Iran’s attempts to encircle Israel by occupying Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Gaza, and its efforts to destabilize Jordan and infiltrate the West Bank, present a multifaceted threat to regional stability and Western interests. The unprecedented attack by Iran on Israel on April 14th, despite failing, demonstrated Iran’s willingness to exploit perceived Israeli weaknesses. How did Iran calculate the Israeli response would be minimal? One cannot ignore the isolation Israel has found itself in the weeks leading up to the April 14th attack, nor the criticism and pressure by its Western allies.

The Western belief that terrorism against Israel is fueled by despair is false. The truth is that hope—hope that Israel can be destroyed—fuels these flames. When Israel is perceived as weak and isolated, and the West unwilling or unable to stand up for its allies and values, its enemies feel emboldened to attack. Pressuring Israel to fight to a draw or accept terrorist neighbors only bolsters radical Islamic and Jihadi forces throughout the Middle East and beyond.

Iran isn’t the sole player vying for regional dominance. Sunni powers like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, each with their own agendas, complicate the regional landscape. The battle for hegemony in the Middle East demands Western attention and strategic recalibration because it will reshape the world our children and grandchildren will inherit. Challenging Iran’s growing influence and nuclear aspirations is imperative to prevent a much larger future conflict.

Global & Civilizational Implications: From Post-War to Pre-War Era

Many in the West cling to old paradigms, viewing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a post-1967 lens; A territorial conflict that can be solved by ending the so-called Israeli occupation with a land-for-peace deal. They believe resolving this conflict is key to the West’s relationship with the Arab/Muslim world. However, the events of October 7th signify more than local or regional turmoil. This event exposed the ongoing Clash of Civilizations, with Israel fighting the first great battle of a War on the West.

Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, emboldened by perceived weaknesses in the liberal democratic order, challenge Western values and institutions. Decades of subversion, dominating international institutions, infusion of billions of Qatari Petro-dollars into the western academia, popular culture, sports, media and social media platforms, challenging American influence in Africa, Asia and South America, offering an alternative global economic order, coupled with Western self-flagellation and guilt, internal divisions, discord, social and political polarization, are all part of an organized campaign to weaken the West and especially the United States of America.

The outpouring of antisemitism serves as a stark reminder of the nature of antisemitism, in the words of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, “Antisemitism is the world’s most reliable early warning sign of a major threat to freedom, humanity and the dignity of difference.” It is a mutating virus, an indication of the fragile nature of tolerance and pluralism in our increasingly polarized world. Tolerating or dismissing these attacks are a sign of a collapsing society. The Jews are the first but never the last. War is coming and we must fight it together.

“Weak leadership could create totalitarian society as quickly as autocratic leadership. The subversion of democracy could come about not only from abrogation of civil liberties but also from failure of nerve among its leaders to stand up to uncompromising factions that wanted everyone else to adapt to them” Edwin H. Friedman, A Failure of Nerve. Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix. pg. 81

A Call for Action: Navigating the Paradigm Shift

The post-Cold War era of liberal triumphalism is over. A more realistic understanding of global dynamics is needed. Israel’s struggle against Hamas is not merely a regional conflict but a microcosm of broader civilizational tensions. The survival of liberal democracies and the values of liberty, tolerance, prosperity, and human rights hinge on confronting these challenges. To paraphrase Edwin H. Friedman in “A Failure of Nerve” rather than trying repeatedly to implement the same failed solution to old problems leaders must reframe their questions and strategies to address the new global realities. They must decide whether the future world will be dominated by tyrants and despots who promote violence, Jihad and chaos, that idealize the subjugation of women and of ethnic, religious and other minorities; or by flawed yet fundamentally free and fair Western democracies. The events of October 7th demand a fundamental reassessment of our assumptions and a renewed commitment to the values underpinning our way of life. Huntington was right, the clash of civilizations is upon us. A paradigm shift is necessary, and Western leaders must rise to the challenge. As of yet, they are failing to do so.