Wolves at the Gate: The Gaza Crisis and the Tectonic Dynamics of Global Geopolitics

Wolves at the Gate: The Gaza Crisis and the Tectonic Dynamics of Global Geopolitics

By Paolo Falconio

Member of the Honorary Governing Council and lecturer at the Society of International Studies (SEI)

In the latest developments concerning the Gaza Strip, the rhetoric of peace appears more as a discursive construct than an actual reality. President Trump’s recent celebration of the release of hostages and the temporary cessation of Palestinian civilian casualties certainly represents a noteworthy outcome. However, to speak of “peace” in the region constitutes a semantic distortion that ignores the underlying structural dynamics. As Foucault (1975) emphasized, discursive devices help shape the perception of reality and mask power relations. In this sense, peace becomes a rhetorical category, incapable of representing the geopolitical complexity of Gaza and the surrounding region.

The concept of peace, as evoked by the media and official statements, functions as a semiotic device aimed at consolidating consensus and disguising real power relations, as highlighted by the theory of political realism (Morgenthau, 1948; Waltz, 1979). Diplomacy does not eliminate conflicts; it renders them symbolically acceptable. The Gaza Strip, in this context, represents a microcosm of global tensions, in which Western language conceals the continuity of conflict and the persistence of conflicting strategic interests.

Reading the Gaza conflict as an isolated phenomenon would be misleading. It is embedded within a matrix of interconnected balances that includes Syria, Iran, the competition among the United States, Russia, and China, and the dynamics of regional and global alliances (Brzezinski, 1997; Buzan & Wæver, 2003).

Within this architecture, Israel does not emerge as an absolute victor but as a functional actor within the broader American global strategy. While indispensable to Washington, the Jewish state cannot become a point of friction with U.S. strategic interests. The involvement of regional actors such as Turkey, Pakistan, and Qatar in Gaza should not be interpreted as a local anomaly, but rather as a component in the Pentagon’s strategic calculations. Turkey and Israel are already confronting each other in Syria, Pakistan has issued nuclear threats in contexts of regional escalation, and Qatar maintains historical ties with Hamas. The latter continues to operate as a functional actor, where disarmament appears more declarative than real. This is because the true geopolitical challenges are being played out on other chessboards, with protagonists such as Russia, China, and potentially Iran. The logic of these interactions evokes “Dr. Strangelove” scenarios, where the nuclear risk is amplified by the absence of shared rules and by Moscow’s doctrine of strategic ambiguity (Allison, 2017).

The moves of global actors seem to be part of a long-term strategic sequencing, in which each action is positioned with a view toward a possible systemic clash. Ukraine, the South China Sea, and Iran represent pieces of a single geopolitical mosaic, in which great power competition is the dominant rule. From this perspective, contemporary geopolitics takes the form of a “war prepared in times of peace,” where threat narratives are used to build internal consensus and prepare public opinion for new power equilibria (Schmitt, 1932; Waltz, 1979).

From the standpoint of systems theory, global geopolitics can be interpreted as an unstable ecosystem, lacking stable attractors, where equilibrium is replaced by continuous adaptation dynamics. Strategic actors are those capable of reading emerging fault lines and adapting rapidly, while others remain passive subjects. This dynamic recalls the Darwinian logic of the survival of the most adaptable, applied to international systems (Diamond, 1997).

In this scenario, the future belongs to the “wolves”: strategic actors capable of adapting, acting, and dominating. The “sheepdogs” — the forces of mediation and containment — have been abandoned. The rest, inevitably, will be made up of “sheep,” defenseless peoples destined to suffer the consequences of global power games. A deliberately stark metaphor, but one that offers an effective interpretive tool for understanding contemporary power dynamics and the growing role of nuclear weapons as instruments of deterrence and strategic pressure.

Essential Bibliography (for in-text references)

- Allison, G. (2017). Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

- Brzezinski, Z. (1997). The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Basic Books.

- Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge University Press.

- Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W. W. Norton & Company.

- Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Gallimard.

- Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Alfred A. Knopf.

- Schmitt, C. (1932). The Concept of the Political. Duncker & Humblot.

- Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics. McGraw-Hill.

Paolo Falconio

All Rights Reserved