2026 has witnessed seismic shifts in global geopolitics, particularly in regions that claim to champion peace and international order.

The swift removal of Venezuela’s president by U.S. forces and his replacement with a Washington friendly leader marked an aggressive assertion of power under the banner of stability. Meanwhile, the war in Gaza continues to claim civilian lives despite intermittent truces, exposing the hollowness of proclamations about peace and restraint.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. led Board of Peace was launched in Egypt with great ceremony, promising stability in Gaza and beyond through transitional peacekeeping forces. Yet, within months, this narrative collapsed. The U.S. Israeli military campaign against Iran in March 2026 dealt a fatal blow to the credibility of the Board, revealing the contradiction between the rhetoric of peace and the reality of armed intervention.

The U.S. Israeli attacks severely damaged Iran’s leadership and infrastructure, eliminating senior political, religious, and military figures. However, expectations of a rapid regime collapse proved misguided. Iran’s existing institutional structures adapted, installing a new command hierarchy that preserved state functionality, albeit in a weakened form. The failure of a swift regime change strategy echoed earlier miscalculations seen elsewhere. Iran’s response was swift and strategic. Missile strikes targeted U.S. military assets across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, while the obstruction of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz disrupted global energy and trade routes. Tehran justified these actions under the doctrine of self defence, arguing they were a direct response to an unprovoked assault based on claims of an “imminent threat” that were never substantiated. Notably, dissent within U.S. security circles surfaced when a senior counter terrorism official resigned, citing the absence of credible intelligence to justify the initial attack. These developments once again exposed the central role of energy geopolitics in modern conflict. The countries most affected by intervention, retaliation, or instability also rank among the world’s largest holders of oil and gas reserves. The weaponisation of energy supply chains—particularly via the Strait of Hormuz—demonstrated how military conflict now reverberates instantly across global markets, driving inflation, threatening food security, and increasing hardship far beyond the battlefield.

World meter oil and gas link statistic from 2026 shows global oil reserves are heavily concentrated in a small group of states, with Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Canada, and the UAE holding significant shares, underscoring why energy rich regions remain central to geopolitical power struggles

They also highlight a similar concentration in natural gas reserves, led by Russia and Iran, reinforcing the argument that control over energy resources profoundly shapes international influence and conflict dynamics. As energy prices surged, the consequences were felt most sharply by ordinary citizens. Rising fuel, food, and transport costs reinforced the reality that geopolitical confrontation disproportionately punishes civilian populations while strategic elites remain insulated from its worst effects.

The assumption in Washington and Tel Aviv that Iran would follow Venezuela’s trajectory of rapid political capitulation proved dangerously flawed. Prior planning had envisaged a post Iran order aligned with Western and Israeli strategic interests, including recognition of Israel, abandonment of nuclear ambitions, and reintegration into Western led economic structures. Instead, Iran’s political system proved more resilient, with continuity ensured through constitutional mechanisms rather than collapse.

Amid escalating violence, the role of the Global South gained renewed significance. Pakistan emerged as a key intermediary, leveraging its diplomatic ties with Iran, China, the Gulf states, and the United States. Alongside China, Pakistan advanced a five point peace framework calling for an immediate ceasefire, dialogue through mediation, protection of civilians, security of maritime routes, and respect for sovereignty under international law. China’s role as a potential guarantor added weight to the proposal, signalling a shift away from Western centric conflict resolution models.

Pakistan’s mediation efforts required careful balancing. Its proximity to Iran, strategic partnership with China, defence commitments with Saudi Arabia, and working relationships with Washington placed Islamabad in a precarious diplomatic position. Any escalation or miscalculation risked drawing it directly into the conflict or turning it into a scapegoat should peace efforts fail.

Within this fragile context, the Islamabad talks between the United States and Iran marked a rare moment of direct engagement. Though the negotiations did not produce an immediate settlement, they re established dialogue between two long estranged adversaries. The talks underscored a fundamental truth of diplomacy: peace is rarely achieved in a single meeting. Like the JCPOA before it, progress requires time, trust building, and multiple rounds of negotiation.

The broader lesson of 2026 is stark. The doctrine that “might is right” has re emerged with alarming force, normalising the erosion of international humanitarian law and the post Second World War rules based order. Military dominance is once again presented as moral authority, even as its consequences destabilise economies, destroy societies, and deepen global inequality. This moment demands a re examination of who the true peacemakers are. Are they those with the greatest military power, or those working—often quietly and without spectacle—to prevent war, reduce suffering, and preserve dialogue? As conflict spreads across Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, South Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East, the answer becomes urgent.

True peace-making is not performative. It is persistent, patient, and principled. It resists the temptation of domination and recognises that lasting peace cannot be imposed by force, but must be constructed through dialogue, restraint, and respect for international law. In a world teetering on the brink, the survival of global order may depend on whether such peacemakers are empowered—or silenced.—The writer ismulti-disciplinarychangemanagement,geo-politicalriskconsultantandanalyst with a focus on peace advocacy, sustainability and diplomacy.

© Pakistan Observer