“The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.” -Antonio Gramsci-
In April 2024, conservation biologists quietly warned that fireflies, the soft flickers that once lit up our summer nights,may vanish within a generation.
But just weeks later, a more ominous light lit the skies from Tel Aviv to Tehran: missiles, drones, and rocket trails turning cities into battlegrounds. Sirens replaced lullabies. A leader’s son postponed his wedding for the sake of “national duty” which is utterly visible as power greed, while children were forced from classrooms and families plunged into terror. Fear did not pass; it settled in. And as cities burned, the world watched, wounded, weary, and seemingly powerless while open genocide going on.
This is no ordinary flare-up in the Middle East. It is a symptom of a world in freefall,where diplomacy lies in ruins, where sovereign skies are violated with impunity, and where the liberal ideals once promised by democracy now echo with silence. Gramsci’s vision of an “interregnum” a space between the death of the old and the birth of the new, has never felt more real. And in that void, as he warned, monsters emerge.
The current escalation between Israel and Iran is not merely a regional dispute. It reflects a deeper civilisational rupture, a violent expression of fractured institutions, broken multilateralism, and the global retreat from human rights. Today’s monsters are not only drones and missiles, they are the normalised cruelties of a world that has lost its moral compass.
Gaza: The wound that refuses to heal
Long before Israeli missiles struck Iranian soil in June 2025, Gaza was already in flames. Following Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack, Israel launched its most devastating military assault on Palestinian territory since the Nakba of 1948. Entire neighbourhoods were reduced to dust. Hospitals bombed. Aid convoys blocked. Gaza became a war-torn chessboard where civilians,not soldiers,were the pawns and victims.
By early 2025, over 45,000 Palestinians had been killed, including more than 14,000 children. Food, water, and electricity became weapons in a siege that surpassed military logic and became existential warfare. Western powers, led by the U.S. and Europe, invoked Israel’s right to self-defense but largely ignored the staggering disproportionality and humanitarian catastrophe.
Gaza is not peripheral to the Israel–Iran conflict,it is its moral and emotional core. It exposes the grotesque evolution of modern war, where civilian lives are expendable and international law bends to political will. As the late Anthony Bourdain once said, “Everything is made in China, except courage. Courage is made in Palestine.” Yet global powers continue to suppress that courage,arming Israel, shielding its actions, and dismantling the very frameworks meant to protect justice.
Operation Rising Lion and Iran’s retaliation: Crossing the demarcation
On June 13, 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a coordinated strike deep inside Iran targeting sites near Natanz and Isfahan,key locations alleged to be linked to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Israeli officials framed these strikes as preemptive self-defense against an imminent nuclear threat. Iran vehemently denied any breach of its nuclear commitments under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and condemned the attack as blatant aggression meant to provoke full-scale regional war.
Civilian casualties quickly followed. Satellite images revealed flattened apartment buildings, destroyed hospitals, and scorched residential compounds. Hundreds perished, thousands more were displaced. Iran responded decisively but indirectly: precision missiles fired from allied militias in Iraq and Yemen, and Hezbollah launched rockets from Southern Lebanon into Northern Israel. Nine days into the conflict, the tit-for-tat spiral shows no sign of abating, with diplomatic channels all but shattered. The fragile norms of restraint in this volatile region now lie in ruins beneath the rubble.
Preemption and the death of war
Israel justified its attack as self-defence, yet Article 51 of the UN Charter only allows such action after an actual armed assault. No such attack had occurred. The discredited logic of preemptive war, resurrected from the 2003 Iraq invasion,was revived unilaterally, bypassing global institutions and due process. This legal asymmetry is striking. Israel, widely understood to possess over 90 nuclear warheads, has never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty nor allowed IAEA inspections. Iran, by contrast, remains a signatory and continues permitting inspections,even after the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal (Joint Comperahensive Plan of Action) in 2018.
To the Global South, this is what many call nuclear apartheid, a world where nuclear rights and wrongs are dictated by power, not by law. When the rule of law becomes selective, it ceases to function as law at all.
Offensive realism and institutional decay
The events of June reveal more than just a clash between two nations, they expose the unravelling of global institutions designed to maintain peace and order. The UN Security Council remained deadlocked for days, paralysed by vetoes.
The G7’s condemnations were tepid at best, prioritising oil market stability over human lives. Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court stayed silent, and the International Atomic Energy Agency( IAEA)’s role was marginalised. Notably, voices from the Global South representing Latin America, Africa, and Asia, were absent in challenging this hypocritical decision-making, especially within the G7’s narrow circles.
This void underscores a broader shift towards offensive realism (offensive power), a worldview where state survival hinges on military might rather than diplomacy or legal frameworks. International law, humanitarian principles, and institutional ethics have become secondary to the ruthless pursuit of strategic dominance.
Understanding the conflict: power, identity and civilisation
The war between Israel and Iran isn’t just about missiles and borders ,it’s a window into how countries see power, identity, and justice on the world stage. From one angle, known as realism in international relations, Israel’s attack makes sense as a move to protect itself in a dangerous neighbourhood. Iran’s responses, often through allies like Hezbollah, are seen as attempts to keep a balance of power and show they won’t back down.
Another view, called liberalism, believes international organisations such as the United Nations and the nuclear watchdog (IAEA) should stop conflicts before they start. But here, these groups have struggled, showing how limited their power really is.Then there’s the constructivist perspective, which looks at how the stories and identities countries tell themselves shape the conflict. Israel sees Iran as an existential threat, rooted in religion and politics. Iran, meanwhile, views Israel as a colonial tool of Western powers. These deep-rooted fears and beliefs drive actions on both sides.
A critical lens called post-colonialism points out unfair double standards. Iran is often portrayed as the villain, while Israel, even though it has much stronger military power, is painted as the victim. This echoes the idea of “Orientalism,” where Western countries see the Global South as irrational or dangerous, denying them full sovereignty.
The conflict also reflects a bigger idea known as the Clash of Civilisations. After the Cold War, some experts predicted future wars would be about cultural and religious differences rather than political ideologies. Israel and Iran both claim to defend “civilisation,” but they define it in very different, opposing ways. Israel sees itself as a democracy surrounded by authoritarian neighbours, while Iran sees itself resisting Western domination and regional isolation.
These competing views are fuelled by history, trauma, and political leaders who use these narratives to rally support. In this zero-sum game, making compromises feels like betrayal, and meaningful diplomacy becomes nearly impossible.
Power without principle: The fragmentation of a multipolar order
The escalating conflict between Israel and Iran has laid bare the fractures within the emerging multipolar world order. It has tested the unity, moral resolve, and geopolitical coherence of the BRICS alliance and the broader Global South,revealing deep divisions, competing interests, and the absence of a principled collective response.
The United States has offered unwavering support to Israel, branding the attacks on Iran as “necessary acts of self-defense.” Meanwhile, China has called for restraint but declined to mediate or apply real pressure. Russia, for its part, has condemned the Israeli operation as a violation of international law, all while continuing to supply arms to both sides and positioning itself as a would-be peacemaker. These ambivalent postures mirror the broader dysfunction of a world where power is diffused but accountability is absent. We are no longer in a unipolar order led by U.S. hegemony, nor have we arrived at a truly multilateral or morally anchored world. Instead, we are trapped in a geopolitical arena, crowded with actors and void of referees,a game without rules.
This is not Baghdad in 2003 or Tripoli in 2011. It is a war fought with AI-powered drones, cyberattacks, and satellite-guided missiles. The precision of modern weaponry has grown, but its ethics have not. Children still bleed in Gaza. Civilians in Isfahan still flee. Algorithms can guide a missile but cannot judge innocence. Software obeys code, not humanitarian law. And the illusion of a “clean war” dissolves under the weight of rubble and the silence of accountability.
Within BRICS, the fault lines are increasingly visible. China and Russia have publicly condemned Israel’s Operation Rising Lion, framing it as a flagrant breach of international norms and a threat to regional stability. For Beijing, Iran is not just an energy partner,it is a strategic node in the Belt and Road Initiative and a vital corridor for Eurasian integration. Russia, amid its ongoing standoff with NATO, sees Iran as a key ally in the Middle East and a counterbalance to Western influence in the region. Yet, despite their strong rhetoric, both China and Russia have avoided direct intervention, opting instead for diplomatic posturing and selective military support through arms sales and joint exercises.
India’s response has been notably more ambivalent. Historically a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights, India has, over the past decade, cultivated a robust strategic partnership with Israel, including extensive defence, surveillance, and intelligence collaboration. This growing alliance, driven by shared security concerns and pragmatic geopolitical calculations, has complicated New Delhi’s posture on the Iran–Israel escalation. India is attempting to balance energy cooperation with Iran, its long-time supplier, while maintaining and deepening its ties with Tel Aviv and Washington. This hedging has unsettled its BRICS partners and weakened the Bloc’s ability to present a unified front in the face of unilateral aggression.
Other BRICS members,such as Brazil and South Africa,have issued cautious statements condemning the violence and calling for adherence to international law. Yet these responses have been largely symbolic, lacking any concrete diplomatic or economic measures. The absence of collective action reflects a broader incapacity or unwillingness,among these states to project coordinated power beyond their immediate regions. BRICS, for all its aspirations as a counterweight to Western-dominated institutions, remains fragmented in practise, struggling to translate shared anti-imperialist rhetoric into meaningful geopolitical leverage.
Across the Global South, the reactions have been similarly fractured. While many nations identify with Iran’s defiance and view Israel’s attacks as extensions of Western militarism, few have taken decisive stances. Political and economic dependencies on the West, particularly through aid, debt, and trade relationships, have tempered public condemnations. Forums such as the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), once potent platforms for collective diplomacy, have so far failed to mount a coherent or impactful response. The absence of coordinated action from these bodies underscores a deeper malaise: a loss of ideological clarity and strategic unity within the postcolonial world.
This moment of crisis thus highlights a central paradox for BRICS and the Global South: though broadly aligned in opposition to Western hegemony and unilateral interventionism, their internal divergences, economic interests, strategic alignments, and ideological commitments, prevent them from acting in concert. The Israel–Iran war has exposed the hollowness of “alternative” power Blocs that lack moral cohesion and collective discipline.
If BRICS is to evolve into a credible global actor, it must move beyond rhetorical condemnation and invest in building shared institutions, rapid-response mechanisms, and a clear political identity rooted in justice, sovereignty, and multilateralism. Without this, the Bloc risks becoming yet another talking shop, loud in forums, quiet in crises. The world may indeed be multipolar, but without moral anchors, this new configuration merely distributes chaos rather than avert it.
Sri Lanka and the Global South in the shadow of war
Though geographically removed from the epicentre of the Israel–Iran confrontation, Sri Lanka is already feeling the reverberations of a rapidly destabilising world order. As global oil prices surge in the wake of Middle Eastern escalation, the country’s fragile economic recovery faces renewed strain. Fuel shortages and inflation, already a source of hardship since the 2022 economic collapse, are worsening, exacerbated by trade delays along critical routes like the Suez Canal. For a nation heavily reliant on energy imports and remittance flows, especially from the Gulf, this crisis arrives as a second shockwave, threatening to unravell hard-won but fragile gains in economic stabilisation.
Yet the repercussions are not only economic. Sri Lanka’s foreign policy stance, once shaped by strong positions on global justice and Non-Aligned solidarity, now stands conspicuously muted. As Israel intensified its assault on Gaza, the Sri Lankan Government quietly deployed more migrant workers to Israel, framing it as an economic decision without addressing the ethical implications of such an engagement. This silence is not just diplomatic, it reveals a deeper erosion of the country’s moral compass. The abandonment of principled positions on Palestine, a cause historically championed across the Global South, signals Sri Lanka’s increasing alignment with transactional geopolitics rather than values-driven diplomacy.
Internally, the normalisation of global militarism and selective justice has ominous echoes. A country still haunted by its own unresolved history of war, ethnic violence, and impunity, Sri Lanka now stands at a crossroads. Will it draw lessons from global authoritarian drift, or replicate it? The risk is that the external silence on foreign injustice mirrors a growing domestic apathy towards accountability, pluralism, and democratic reform. For Sri Lanka and much of the Global South, the Israel–Iran crisis is not merely distant war; it is a mirror reflecting the broader crisis of sovereignty, justice, and moral imagination unfolding across the postcolonial world.
The crisis of moral imagination: listening for the birds
Lebanese poet Marwan Makhoul once wrote, “In order for me to write poetry that isn’t political, I must listen to the birds. And in order to hear the birds, the warplanes must be silent.”
Today, we inhabit Antonio Gramsci’s interregnum, a suspended moment between a crumbling world and one yet to be born. In this vacuum, monsters flourish: hyper-nationalism, technocratic authoritarianism, and permanent war disguised as security. But perhaps the most devastating casualty is not institutional, it is moral imagination. We have normalised brutality, commodified justice, and lost the courage to envision peace beyond the architecture of power.
To reclaim a more humane future, we must first dismantle the binaries, ally versus enemy, East versus West, civilised versus savage. The interregnum need not end in annihilation. But for a new world to rise, the warplanes must be silenced, the drones grounded, and the dead honoured with dignity. Only then can we hear birdsong again. Only then can poetry return.
And yet, as the war escalates with ever-advancing technology, we inch closer to a precipice. Albert Einstein once said, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” His words echo as prophecy, a reminder that the unchecked power of modern warfare may obliterate the very foundations of civilisation. If this path continues, we may one day awaken to a world where the ruins speak louder than reason, and all that remains of our progress is silence.
