The New Cold War in the Making: Shrinking Empires, Mini-Wars, and the Encirclement of China

Abstract

This paper argues that current conflicts across the Middle East and Africa represent not isolated crises but deliberate geopolitical maneuvers forming a new Cold War. It critically analyzes the historical legacy of U.S. global hegemony, particularly the Cold War era (1947–1989), and assesses whether we are witnessing its decline amid multipolar shifts. With a focus on the encirclement strategy toward China, the militarization of humanitarianism, and the ideological transformation of regions such as Gaza, Iran, and the broader Arab world, this paper interrogates the structure and motivations behind current proxy wars. It examines whether they signal an attempt to reassert Western dominance or reveal a fragmented imperial order in retreat. It also warns that the intensification of geopolitical rivalries in a nuclearized world introduces unprecedented risks for global catastrophe.

Introduction: From Containment to Encirclement

Since the end of World War II, the United States emerged as a global hegemon, structuring world affairs through a binary lens of capitalism versus communism. The Cold War, primarily fought between the U.S. and the USSR, saw the rise of vast U.S. military installations (over 750 bases globally), a dominant role for the U.S. dollar, and the consolidation of military alliances such as NATO and economic institutions like the IMF and World Bank. At the heart of that order was a strategic policy of containment, primarily directed at Soviet expansionism (Mearsheimer, 2014).

Today, however, a new question arises: Is the current proliferation of regional conflicts—from Gaza and Yemen to the Sahel, Sudan, and Horn of Africa—a fragmented repetition of that containment strategy, now redirected toward China? If so, are we witnessing the rise of a new Cold War and the slow erosion of U.S. global leadership—and more dangerously, the possibility of nuclear confrontation as rival powers become increasingly entangled in proxy escalations?

Mini-Wars and Strategic Realignments in the Middle East and Africa

The pattern of localized warfare across the Middle East and Africa—often portrayed as ethnic, religious, or humanitarian crises—masks deeper strategic intentions. The U.S. and its allies have increasingly turned to proxy mechanisms, covert intelligence, and military contractors under humanitarian covers, as suggested in projects like the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). These organizations, sometimes operated by defense contractors, blur the lines between humanitarian aid and military surveillance, especially in areas like Gaza, where resistance groups like Hamas operate (Johnson, 2004).

For example, the "Gaza 2035 Plan" points toward long-term geopolitical restructuring, not mere short-term security. Allegations from academic institutions such as Harvard have highlighted the staggering human toll—up to 500,000 Palestinian deaths attributed to Israel's military campaigns, which raises profound ethical questions about Western complicity and the erosion of international law (Sachs, 2023).

Iran has emerged as a principal obstacle in Western strategic planning. Iran's support for Palestinian liberation, its regional alliances with Hezbollah and Syria, and its resistance to the Abraham Accords—designed to normalize Arab-Israeli relations—have made it a primary target for destabilization. Efforts to neutralize Iran through sanctions, covert operations, and potential regime change mirror the playbook used against the USSR during the Cold War (Parsi, 2017).

The Abraham Accords and the Remapping of the Middle East

The Abraham Accords are more than peace treaties; they are mechanisms for realigning the Middle East under a Western-approved political and economic order. The strategy seeks to marginalize traditional resistance movements in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, while encircling Iran and isolating China's influence in the region. The intent is not simply to resolve historic conflicts but to re-engineer the region in the image of neoliberal Western modernity—culturally, economically, and militarily (Walt, 2018).

With Iran as the immediate obstacle, regime change would open the path to a more aggressive strategic focus on China, not through direct military confrontation, but via economic containment, digital infrastructure control, and proxy alignments from Africa to the Pacific. However, in a world saturated with nuclear capabilities—from Israel and Pakistan to India, China, Russia, France, Great Britain, North Korea, and the United States—the remapping of alliances carries the latent risk of escalation into full-scale nuclear confrontation, especially if conventional proxy wars spiral out of control.

Ukraine, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa: Nodes in the Grand Chessboard

The war in Ukraine, often framed as a defensive struggle for democracy, has broader implications in the emergent Cold War logic. By exhausting Russian resources and consolidating NATO's role, the U.S. seeks to neutralize a key ally of China, thereby isolating Beijing geopolitically (Mearsheimer, 2014). The prolonged conflict in Ukraine justifies sustained military spending and the redeployment of American strategic focus to Eastern Europe and the Black Sea, regions critical for energy and security corridors.

Global powers can manipulate the war in Sudan and the growing tensions in the Horn of Africa (notably Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia) to exploit regional instability and constrain China's Belt and Road ambitions. The strategic location of these areas near the Red Sea and Indian Ocean makes them vital for global maritime trade. China's investments in Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Kenya face increasing threats from militarized disruptions and proxy conflicts, often fueled by external arms and diplomatic influence (Galtung, 1971).

The fragmentation of state authority in these regions opens opportunities for militarized humanitarianism, foreign base expansions, and resource extraction deals favorable to Western actors. These regional crises thus act as containment peripheries, weakening potential Chinese alliances while preserving Western strategic flexibility.

The Decline of the Empire?

The United States' vast military-industrial complex—reflected in a defense budget exceeding $800 billion—signals not strength but insecurity. While public investment in healthcare, education, and infrastructure continues to lag, disproportionate military spending has become a structural feature of U.S. governance. As critics argue, this prioritization of militarization over social well-being exacerbates domestic inequality, deepens political polarization, and contributes to a growing fiscal imbalance (Johnson, 2004; Stiglitz & Bilmes, 2008). Rather than bolstering global leadership institutions like the United Nations, the United States increasingly relies on defense contracting and overseas military bases. This strategy reflects an empire struggling to maintain coherence amid a rapidly changing world order.

This posture, however, is under growing strain. China's Belt and Road Initiative, deepening ties between BRICS nations, and the emergence of alternative payment systems threaten the dominance of the U.S. dollar. At the same time, European Union states—despite rhetorical unity with the U.S.—possess the most significant foreign investments in America and may not indefinitely support escalatory confrontation with China, especially when their economic interests diverge (Sachs, 2023). The lack of a cohesive global security architecture raises the stakes further: a miscalculation in the Taiwan Strait, the Persian Gulf, or Eastern Europe could lead to a catastrophic nuclear escalation.

Toward a Multipolar and Nuclearized Future

Rather than a new Cold War between two superpowers, the current geopolitical landscape is more fluid, unstable, and multipolar. While the U.S. may attempt to contain China by militarizing and destabilizing its periphery—such as East Africa, Central Asia, and the South China Sea—the tools of containment no longer hold the same strategic coherence. The mini-wars of today do not yield clear victories but instead drain legitimacy, foster regional resentment, and contribute to global instability (Walt, 2018).

Moreover, China advances its global influence primarily through technological innovation, trade connectivity, and strategic partnerships with Global South nations, rather than traditional military alliances. This strategy marks a structural contrast to Cold War dynamics. It raises the question: Can imperial containment strategies succeed in a world where influence is exerted not through ideology or arms, but through data, energy, and infrastructure?

However, the risk of nuclear confrontation may be a dangerous dimension of this new era. The first Cold War, today's geopolitical rivalries unfold in a world with far more nuclear actors and fewer diplomatic backchannels. Escalating tensions between NATO and Russia, U.S. military maneuvers in the Indo-Pacific, and growing military-tech convergence among emerging powers all increase the possibility of miscalculation. In the pursuit of supremacy, the threat of global annihilation remains ever-present.

Conclusion: A World in Transition, A Future in Peril

We are, indeed, in the throes of a new global reordering. Whether this becomes a second Cold War or collapses into regional chaos depends mainly on the choices made by both established and rising powers. The mini-wars across the Middle East and Africa, alongside the war in Ukraine and conflicts in the Horn of Africa, are not disconnected; they are geopolitical tremors of a shrinking empire attempting to forestall decline.

However, the aim is to encircle China and preserve unipolar hegemony. In that case, history may judge this a misguided attempt—costly, ethically fraught, and ultimately unsustainable in a multipolar, post-Western world. As the specter of nuclear war returns to global discourse, what is at stake is not merely geopolitical dominance but the survival of a shared human future. The time to rethink international cooperation, disarmament, and ethical global leadership is not tomorrow but now.

References (Available Upon Request.)