MidEast crisis: The zero sum game with international implications

The geopolitics is claimed not to be about morality, but interests. This is more apparent now than ever in the current crisis in the Middle East- a region who is again in the cross current of power rivalry amongst the world powers.

What we are observing today is not a regional war, it is a zero-sum game, where the victory of one of the players is seen as a loss to the other, and that there is limited room to participate or compromise.

The main element of this crisis is the growing strain between the United States and Iran, a conflict that is based on decades of mistrust and the desire to dominate the region as a result of strategic rivalry.

Although the ideological or religious differences are frequently a concern of the narratives, the empirical data indicate that the strategic considerations are the main ones like security, influence and command over important resources.

One remarkable characteristic of this zero-sum game is energy geopolitics.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration argues that the Strait of Hormuz is one of the most important chokepoints in the world, as close to 20 percent of the world consumes petroleum liquids in this Strait.

It is an important route that has immediate impact on the world supply chains and stability of prices.

This fact is already present in the market behavior. Oil price volatility in the world market has been rising comparatively in times when the US and Iran have a high level of tension, and in the past the Brent crude has seen production peaks of 10-20% in times of escalation in the geopolitical climate (BP, 2024).

Likewise, LNG markets have been sensitized whereby spot markets in Asia have started surging during Middle Eastern instabilities.

A zero-sum theory will make the ownership of such strategic resources a tussle of might. To Iran, geopolitical power is the capability to control the Strait of Hormuz.

To the United States and its allies, it is critical to have constant energy flow to stabilize the economy of the world. Such conflicting goals necessarily exclude the prospect of collaborative results.

The effect of this competition goes way beyond the Middle East.

The International Monetary Fund (2024) states that every 10-percent rise in the oil prices worldwide would cut the growth in the global GDP by around 0.1-0.2 percentage points, and would, at the same time, raise inflationary pressures.

These macroeconomic impacts are unevenly distributed in the developing countries that are energy importers.

Bangladesh is a definite illustration of this weakness. The Gulf region is a major importer of fuel and LNG in the country.

The energy dependency of Bangladesh has increased to high levels in the last decade, according to the Asian Development Bank (2024), which means the country is vulnerable to price shocks in the world market.

In addition, the Middle East economic relationship with Bangladesh is not only limited to energy.

According to the estimates of the World Bank (2024), remittances contribute about 6-7 percent of the GDP in Bangladesh, and a significant portion of it comes with remittances by the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

Moreover, the International Organization for Migration states that more than 10 million migrants of Bangladesh are employed in foreign countries with a significant part of them being in the Middle East.

These flows are getting more susceptible in a zero-sum geopolitical world.

Remittance inflows can be disrupted because of economic slowdowns, labor market restrictions or political instability in host countries, disrupting hundreds of millions of households.

This interconnectedness underscores one of the most important facts: since in a zero-sum game, the great powers are usually the ones to gain, the smaller economies frequently have to incur a disproportionate amount of costs.

They are not the major actors in the struggle, but they are seriously influenced by the consequences.

In theoretical perspective, the prevailing crisis is quite close to the tenets of Realism in international relations. States follow national interest, they prefer power and security to cooperation.

It has been pointed out by scholars and organizations like Brookings Institution, that in most cases, these dynamics result in competition instead of collaboration.

Meanwhile, the Constructivist views help us to remember that identity and historical accounts influence how such conflicts are perceived and expressed.

Nevertheless, these aspects do not shape causality rather interpretation.

The political economy of energy is one more significant dimension.

The International Energy Agency (2024) states that the Middle East is a key energy producer, producing nearly 30 percent of all oil worldwide, which supports the fact that this region is the core of the energy security in the global context.

The possession of sources of energy and the routes of transportation hence becomes directly converted into geopolitical influence.

Whether such a logic of zero sum is necessary is then the question.

History indicates that zero-sum dynamics will prevail when the levels of tension are most high, but these are not long-term.

Collaboration has been observed in the past where common interests like economic security or environmental sustainability have prevailed over the strategic competition.

Nevertheless, the geopolitical situation nowadays can imply little room of such cooperation.

In the case of countries such as Bangladesh, it is not how they can shape the end result of this competition but how effectively they may deal with the effects of such competition.

To start with, the energy reliance on the importation of energy to one particular region needs to be minimized.

Supply diversification and renewable energy investment can play a significant role in eliminating geopolitical risks.

The world is heading in the right direction with the International Energy Agency projecting that more than 50 percent of the world electricity growth would be provided by renewable energy by the year 2030.

Second, it is essential to enhance the domestic resilience. Energy efficiency would help cut down the consumption by 10-15 percent, which will relieve the burden on imports and the foreign exchange reserves.

Third, diplomatic balance is also to be maintained. The policy of neutrality gives flexibility to Bangladesh, but the policy should be supported with economic preparedness and a strategic vision.

Finally, the Middle East crisis indicates the highly intertwined nature of world economy. What happens in one part of the world may cascade to other parts of the world.

This crisis is especially important to Generation Z. It questions the usual economic trajectories, casts doubt on the prospects of employment, and brings in the necessity of new skills and flexibility in the global world that is changing rapidly.

To sum up, the Middle East crisis does not only exist in the region, it is an expression of a larger geopolitical reality that is based on zero sum game.

As the mega powers struggle to dominate the world, the burdens are spread around the world and usually the most vulnerable economies suffer.

In the case of Bangladesh, the way to go is not through responding to crisis, but through planning crisis.

There will be a need to diversify, be resilient and plan strategically in order to navigate an increasingly uncertain world.

The very issue of global system where zero-sum thinking reigns supreme is to make room in the system so that non-zero-sum solutions can be applied, where cooperation, sustainability, and collective advancement could become a practical solution.

(In this article, the author relies on publicly available data and research from international organizations, including the IEA, World Bank, IMF, Reuters, and regional policy sources.)

(Dr. Tanvir teaches at Daffodil International University-RAK Campus, UAE).