Opinion Piece by Journalist and Writer, Favour Ulebor
The ongoing conflicts around the world continue to raise difficult questions about the real power of global peace institutions. When wars involving major powers erupt, such as the Russia Ukraine conflict or the confrontation between the United States, Israel and Iran, many observers begin to wonder what role international peacekeeping bodies truly play.
Institutions such as the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the European Union were created to maintain international peace, prevent wars and promote cooperation among nations. Yet in situations where powerful countries are directly involved in hostilities, these organisations often appear unable to intervene decisively.
One major reason is the structure of the global system itself. International relations are built on the principle of sovereignty, which means every country has authority over its own territory. Under the charter of the United Nations, military intervention is only permitted in limited circumstances, usually with approval from the United Nations Security Council.
However, the Security Council includes five permanent members with veto power: the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France. If any one of these countries rejects a resolution, it cannot pass. This means that when conflicts involve one of these major powers, the United Nations often becomes constrained. For instance, Russia can veto actions relating to Ukraine, while the United States can block resolutions that go against its interests or those of its allies.
Because of these limitations, global organisations frequently rely on diplomacy, sanctions and negotiations rather than direct military enforcement. Their role becomes more about managing crises than preventing them entirely.
Still, these institutions are not without influence. They provide platforms for dialogue, coordinate humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping missions, and help establish international legal standards through bodies such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Even when they cannot stop wars immediately, they help maintain international norms and provide avenues for conflict resolution.
However, the current wave of geopolitical tensions suggests that the international system may need reform if it is to remain effective in dealing with conflicts involving powerful states.
To mitigate these conflicts and bring major powers such as Russia and the United States to order, several steps could be considered. First, there must be renewed commitment to diplomacy and multilateral negotiations involving neutral mediators and regional actors. Countries that maintain diplomatic relations with all sides can play important roles in facilitating dialogue.
Second, reforms within the United Nations system could be explored, particularly regarding the use of veto power in situations involving mass violence or major international security threats. Some experts have proposed limits on the veto when humanitarian crises are at stake.
Third, stronger economic and political incentives for peace could be developed through coordinated international action. Sanctions, trade agreements and reconstruction commitments can sometimes encourage parties to return to negotiations.
Finally, sustained diplomatic pressure from the broader international community is essential. While no single institution can force powerful nations into compliance, collective global pressure through alliances, international law and public diplomacy can influence behaviour over time.
Ultimately, the prevention and resolution of large scale conflicts depend not only on institutions but also on the political will of nations. Global organisations can create the framework for peace, but lasting stability requires cooperation among the very powers whose rivalry often fuels these crises.
Religion, Power and Politics in the Iran–U.S.–Israel Conflict
One of the most sensitive questions surrounding the current confrontation between Iran, United States and Israel is whether the conflict is purely geopolitical or whether religion also plays a role in shaping the narratives around it.
Iran operates under an Islamic political system established after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, where religious authority plays a central role in governance. Because of this, political tensions with Western powers are sometimes interpreted by observers as a clash between Western secular influence and Islamic governance. However, many international relations scholars argue that the conflict is driven primarily by strategic and security concerns rather than religion itself.
For example, one of the central issues between Iran and Western powers has been Iran’s nuclear programme. The United States and its allies have repeatedly expressed concern that Iran could develop nuclear weapons, which they argue would destabilise the region and threaten Israel’s security.
At the same time, religious language has increasingly appeared in the public rhetoric surrounding the conflict. Some political figures and commentators have framed the confrontation in civilisational or religious terms, portraying it as a struggle between opposing ideological or religious visions. Analysts warn that such language can mobilise public support but may also deepen divisions and make diplomatic compromise more difficult.
Beyond religion, several geopolitical factors explain why the United States remains deeply involved in Iran’s affairs.
First is regional security and alliances. Israel is one of Washington’s closest allies in the Middle East, and U.S. policy has long focused on maintaining Israel’s security while limiting the influence of regional rivals such as Iran.
Second is balance of power in the Middle East. Many U.S. strategic policies aim to prevent any single country from becoming dominant in the region, which is one of the world’s most strategically important areas.
Third is energy security. The Middle East contains some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves, and disruptions in the region can affect global energy markets. Recent fighting has already pushed oil prices upward due to fears of supply disruptions.
Because of these overlapping factors, the conflict cannot easily be reduced to a single explanation. Some observers believe geopolitical influence and security concerns are the primary motivations, while others argue economic interests such as energy resources play an important role. There are also those who see ideological tensions between different political systems as a major driver.
Ultimately, the Iran–U.S.–Israel confrontation illustrates how modern conflicts often combine strategic rivalry, regional alliances, economic interests and ideological narratives, making them far more complex than a simple religious or political dispute.
