By Prof Dr Ali Salman

In today’s complex global landscape, power is often treated as the main tool for shaping outcomes.

Many states still operate on the assumption that strength can secure compliance and maintain control. Yet this reliance on force reflects a deeper mindset rooted in Machiavellian thinking – the belief that ends justify the means.

This raises an important question: does the pursuit of power truly bring stability, or does it merely create an illusion of control while deeper tensions remain unresolved?

The illusion of power in modern geopolitics

In the hard realities of global politics, the shadow of Niccolò Machiavelli continues to influence how power is exercised. His ideas are not always openly acknowledged, but they remain visible in how states justify their actions.

This is particularly evident in the ongoing tensions involving the United States, Israel, and Iran.

At first glance, the reasons presented – security concerns, nuclear risks, and regional stability – appear familiar. However, beneath these explanations lies a more persistent objective: control.

This includes control over influence, strategic routes, and, most critically, energy resources that sustain the global economy.

The Middle East remains central to global oil flows, and any disruption quickly affects inflation, supply chains, and economic stability worldwide. The large-scale strikes launched in early 2026 were intended to project overwhelming strength and force a rapid outcome.

There was a clear expectation that Iran, already facing sanctions and internal pressures, would yield quickly. However, this assumption proved misguided.

Rather than collapsing, Iran responded with sustained retaliation, turning what was expected to be a swift campaign into a prolonged and uncertain conflict.

Miscalculation and the expanding consequences

Instead of retreating, Iran launched retaliatory strikes against military bases, strategic assets, and energy routes across the region.

What was expected to be decisive and short-lived has instead evolved into a prolonged and unpredictable confrontation. Despite sustained pressure, the Iranian state remains intact and, in many ways, more determined to resist.

This reflects a recurring miscalculation in power-driven politics – the belief that strength guarantees submission.

In reality, nations are not passive, and societies rarely yield easily under external pressure. Iran’s size, military capacity, and regional connections make it far more complex than initially assumed.

What appeared to be a calculated move now seems like an overestimation of control, overlooking the role of resilience, identity, and strategic depth.

The consequences are no longer confined to the battlefield. Energy markets have become unstable, economies are under increasing strain, and the risk of wider regional escalation continues to grow.

Neighbouring countries are being drawn into the tension, raising concerns about a broader conflict that could reshape the region.

At the same time, the human cost is significant. While powerful states project strength, ordinary people bear the burden.

Civilians face casualties, damaged infrastructure, and limited access to essential services. Vulnerable groups, including migrant workers and low-income communities, are especially exposed.

Beyond the region, the ripple effects are felt globally through rising fuel costs, food insecurity, and economic instability.

Beyond power: the need for diplomacy and peace

These developments point to a clear lesson: dominance cannot replace diplomacy.

Military strength may achieve short-term objectives, but it rarely leads to lasting peace. In many cases, reliance on force deepens divisions and prolongs conflict rather than resolving it.

The time has come to move beyond the illusion that force alone can resolve complex geopolitical disputes. While military action may bring immediate results, it often fails to address the deeper political, economic, and social causes of conflict. Instead, it can intensify grievances and reinforce cycles of instability that are difficult to break.

Sustainable solutions require dialogue, mutual understanding, and a willingness to compromise.

All parties – both directly involved and those with influence – must return to the negotiating table with a genuine commitment to long-term stability. This requires a shift from confrontation to cooperation, and from dominance to restraint.

Machiavellian politics, in many respects, has reached its limits. While it may deliver short-term gains, it has largely led to instability, uncertainty, and prolonged conflict rather than to meaningful or lasting solutions.

Most importantly, it has failed to deliver peace. Without trust, respect, and genuine cooperation, conflicts remain unresolved at their core.

If there is one priority moving forward, it is this: to move beyond power-driven strategies and commit to building a more stable and peaceful future – one grounded in dialogue, cooperation, and long-term thinking rather than short-term displays of strength.

-- BERNAMA

Dr Ali Salman is a Professor at the Faculty of Arts and Science, Universiti Malaya-Wales, Kuala Lumpur.