THE world was a much simpler place when I was growing up than it is today. Two superpowers, the USA and the USSR, imposed a kind of peace over their respective client states, and apart from occasional conflicts at the edges of their spheres of influence, major wars were generally local affairs. Above all, there were no shrill newscasters on TV channels, bringing us news of fresh disaster 24/7.

But after the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, the world has become a far more dangerous place. The unravelling began with the first Gulf War and the US-led invasion of Iraq. The senior George Bush then famously announced that “a new world order” had begun. Although he did not say so clearly, what he meant was that without the restraint inherent in a bipolar world, the USA would henceforth call the shots, with the UN rubber-stamping its actions.

The collapse of the USSR and the demise of the Warsaw Pact saw many new independent states emerge in Central Asia and East Europe. Old enmities re-surfaced, leading to genocidal warfare in the now-defunct Yugoslavia. This new mosaic placed a huge strain on the post-Second World War consensus, and encouraged the US to take on the role of global cop.

For a quarter century, this tenuous arrangement remained in place, but is now under severe challenge. China is clearly the main rival to America’s economic and military power, but Beijing is a cautious player that, while aware of its strength, is pragmatic enough not to allow ideology or nationalism to push it into direct confrontation with the US prematurely.

Russia under Putin is now flexing its muscles, and testing US resolve from Crimea to Syria. The Russian leader is a product of an authoritarian era, and is determined not to allow the Americans to dictate to him. And of course Russian interests and security concerns diverge widely from America’s.

In the volatile Middle East, we are seeing the breakdown of a US-led arrangement in which conservative, oil-rich states where ruling kings and autocrats prospered under an American security umbrella. On the other side, secular dictators ruled with an iron fist with Soviet support. This uneasy balance broke down after the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, and has continued to unravel ever since. Now much of the region is in flames.

As if there wasn’t enough turmoil in the Middle East, we now have a wild card like Donald Trump, and an ambitious and ruthless man like Prince Mohammed bin Salman, virtually in power in Saudi Arabia. Under the older generation of rulers, the kingdom played a cautious, low-profile role in the region. Despite their abhorrence of Iran, previous kings did not generally seek to directly confront the ayatollahs.

With his father’s support, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, now the direct heir to the throne, has upended the regional status quo with his aggressive policies. Already, Saudi Arabia was widely seen as supporting the most extreme jihadi groups fighting to topple Bashar Al Assad in Syria. Now it is seeking to eliminate Qatar’s role as peace-broker by imposing an embargo aimed at forcing the tiny state to drop its pretensions. Ironically, the Saudis are accusing Qatar of supporting Islamic terrorists like the Al Nusra Front when the kingdom’s own backing of the most violent groups is well documented.

But above all, Qatar’s unforgiveable sin is its regional ambitions. With a tiny population and vast gas reserves, it has been able to punch well above its weight. Al Jazeera, the popular TV channel, first began broadcasting in Arabic in 1996, and was soon required viewing across the Middle East. Its English-language channel was up and running by the second Gulf War in 2003, and was a major source of news of the conflict.

Qatar also owns iconic properties like Harrod’s in London, and will play host to the football World Cup next year. All this has irked its bigger neighbours, and under Prince Salman, the tiny country is being squeezed economically and politically. President Trump has contributed to this mess by egging on the Saudis, despite the fact that Qatar is home to a large American base with 11,000 servicemen, and the Pentagon is directing its operations in Syria and Iraq from here.

Meanwhile, the Saudi air campaign continues to rain death across Yemen where thousands have been killed by incompetent pilots who drop bombs indiscriminately on markets, mosques, hospitals and schools. By blockading Yemeni ports, Saudi Arabia has imposed starvation on the poorest Arab country.

The recent formation of a Saudi-led coalition of Sunni states is another potentially destabilising move in a highly combustible region. The thrust of the so-called Riyadh Declaration, issued during Trump’s recent visit to the kingdom, is deeply sectarian, and names Iran as a major source of terrorism. This is ironic, considering that most of the 9/11 suicide bombers were Saudis, and the country contributes large numbers of volunteers for the militant Islamic State group as well as other extremist groups fighting in Syria.

All this unpredictability has forced leaders across the world to re-evaluate alliances and relationships with both the United States and Saudi Arabia. Trump’s negative attitude towards Nato has been deeply troubling to its other members, with Germany’s Angela Merkel declaring that Europe would have to depend on its own resources in the future to defend itself.

In Washington, there was a hope that the secretaries of defence and state, as well as the national security advisor — three pragmatic officials known as ‘the axis of adults’ — would prevent Trump from derailing established policies. However, the president has shown that he can undo diplomatic protocols with a mere tweet. And Prince Salman, the de facto Saudi ruler, is reported to encourage his entourage to refer to him as Alexander the Great. With these two calling the shots, is it any wonder the world is in such a mess?

And after this rant about the state of the world, let me wish readers a very happy Eid.

irfan.husain@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, June 26th, 2017