War, power politics, crisis of global governance

By Okechukwu Nwanguma

The escalating confrontation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran represents one of the most dangerous geopolitical flashpoints of our time. What began as targeted strikes has rapidly expanded into a wider regional confrontation involving missile exchanges, cyber operations, and threats to critical global energy routes such as the Strait of Hormuz.

Beyond the immediate military dimension, the conflict raises deeper questions about the collapse of global governance, the paralysis of international institutions, and the implications for vulnerable regions such as Africa.

At the heart of this crisis lies a sobering reality: the international system built after the Second World War to prevent catastrophic conflicts is struggling to function. The institution meant to safeguard peace – the United Nations – appears increasingly unable to mediate disputes between major powers or enforce the principles of international law upon which it was founded.

The promise and failure of the post-war order

The UN was established in 1945 in the aftermath of the devastation caused by the First World War and the Second World War. Its Charter famously declares the determination “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” The architects of the post-war order believed that collective security, diplomacy, and multilateral cooperation could prevent the recurrence of large-scale conflicts.

For decades, despite numerous crises, the UN served as an important forum for diplomacy. Even during the Cold War, the institution provided channels through which rival powers could negotiate, de-escalate tensions, and maintain a fragile balance of peace.

Today, however, that system appears to be eroding. The international order has shifted from a relatively stable multilateral structure to a far more fragmented and competitive geopolitical environment. Major powers increasingly pursue unilateral strategies, while international law is invoked selectively rather than consistently applied.

This shift is visible in the current confrontation involving Iran. Diplomatic agreements painstakingly negotiated over years can be dismantled almost overnight. A clear example was the collapse of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, negotiated under Barack Obama and several global powers. The deal aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. When the agreement was later abandoned by the administration of Donald Trump, the fragile diplomatic framework collapsed, returning the region to confrontation.

The paralysis of the security council

The most glaring symptom of institutional breakdown is the paralysis of the UN Security Council. The Council’s structure, built around the veto powers of its five permanent members, increasingly prevents decisive action whenever major powers are directly involved in conflicts.

In the current geopolitical climate, divisions among the permanent members – particularly between the United States, Russia, and China – have rendered the Council almost incapable of responding effectively to crises. Conflicts involving powerful states or their strategic allies become virtually impossible to resolve through UN mechanisms.

This paralysis was far less pronounced in earlier decades. Even controversial interventions once secured UN authorization, such as the operation enabled by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 during the Libyan Civil War. Today, a resolution of that nature would almost certainly be blocked by vetoes reflecting geopolitical rivalries.

The result is a global system where military power increasingly overrides diplomatic processes.

The dangerous logic of pre-emptive war

The present confrontation also raises fundamental questions about the legality and morality of preventive military action. Under international law, states may resort to force only in self-defense against an armed attack or with explicit authorization from the UN Security Council.

Launching military action to prevent another state from acquiring potential weapons capabilities – such as nuclear weapons – falls into a legally ambiguous and widely contested category. Critics argue that this logic undermines the entire framework of international law by normalizing wars based on suspicion rather than actual aggression.

The pattern is not new. Several U.S.-led interventions over the past two decades have produced deeply destabilizing consequences. The Iraq War, the prolonged conflict in Afghanistan, and the intervention in Libya have all left behind fragile states, humanitarian crises, and long-term regional instability.

These experiences raise legitimate fears that another military campaign in the Middle East could produce similar outcomes:
– political fragmentation,
– insurgency, and waves of refugees that destabilize neighboring countries.

The energy shock and the global economy

Beyond the battlefield, the war carries profound economic consequences. The Middle East remains central to global energy supplies, and any conflict affecting the Strait of Hormuz threatens one of the world’s most vital oil transit routes.

Roughly a fifth of the world’s petroleum passes through this narrow corridor each day. Even the threat of disruption can trigger dramatic price spikes in global energy markets. Analysts warn that prolonged conflict could push oil prices toward $200 per barrel, reigniting inflationary pressures worldwide.

For developing economies already grappling with debt, inflation, and fragile currencies, such shocks could be devastating.

Nigeria’s strategic vulnerabilities

For Nigeria, the implications are particularly complex. Rising oil prices might initially increase government revenues, but the broader economic effects could prove damaging. Higher global energy prices often translate into increased domestic fuel costs, transportation expenses, and inflation.

Nigeria’s vulnerability also reflects a deeper structural problem: decades of neglect in domestic refining capacity. Despite being one of Africa’s largest oil producers, the country has historically depended heavily on imported refined petroleum products.

Recent developments, such as the emergence of the Dangote Refinery, represent an important step toward addressing this paradox. However, the broader lesson remains clear: energy security requires long-term strategic planning, not reactive crisis management.

A world drifting toward multipolar rivalry

The geopolitical context surrounding the conflict reflects a broader transformation in global politics. The era of overwhelming American dominance following the Cold War is gradually giving way to a multipolar system in which several major powers compete for influence.

This new landscape is characterized by rising nationalism, weakened multilateral institutions, and intensifying strategic rivalries. In such an environment, international organizations often struggle to maintain authority over states that possess overwhelming military or economic power.

The risk is that the global system may drift toward a more dangerous form of great-power competition – one in which wars are fought indirectly through regional proxies or smaller states.

The urgent need for institutional reform

If the United Nations is to remain relevant in the twenty-first century, serious reforms are necessary. These reforms must address both the structural limitations of the Security Council and the broader imbalance of power within global governance institutions.

Many scholars and diplomats have long argued for expanding the Security Council to reflect contemporary geopolitical realities. Regions such as Africa and Latin America remain underrepresented despite their growing importance.

Equally important is strengthening mechanisms for preventive diplomacy – intervening early in conflicts before they escalate into full-scale wars.

However, institutional reform alone cannot solve the problem. Ultimately, the effectiveness of global governance depends on political will. International institutions can only function if powerful states are willing to respect the rules they helped create.

The choice before humanity
The current crisis illustrates a stark truth about the modern world. Humanity possesses unprecedented technological power – including weapons capable of catastrophic destruction – yet lacks the collective political structures necessary to manage that power responsibly.

Wars in the twenty-first century are no longer confined to battlefields. They disrupt global supply chains, destabilize economies, generate mass displacement, and deepen political polarization across continents.

The confrontation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran is therefore more than a regional dispute. It is a test of whether the international community can still resolve conflicts through diplomacy rather than force.

If global governance institutions continue to weaken, the world may increasingly resemble the chaotic geopolitical landscape that preceded the Second World War – a system dominated not by law, but by power.

The lesson of history is clear: when diplomacy fails and institutions collapse, humanity pays the price.

The question now is whether the world will learn that lesson in time.

Alleged N91.7m, N3.4m fraud: EFCC arraigns Mathew, Olaomo, Ikwugwu, Abiodun for theft in Lagos

Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Lagos Zonal Directorate 1, has arraigned four suspects: Adetunji Mathew, Victor Damilare Olaomo, Douglas Agorom Ikwugwu and Arowolo Adeniyi Abiodun, before different judges at the Lagos State High Court in Ikeja, Lagos, over alleged fraud and theft.

According to the Head, Media and Publicity, EFCC, Dele Oyewale, Mathew and Olaomo were arraigned before Justice O. A. Okunuga of the Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja on a five-count charge bordering on conspiracy to commit felony and stealing to the tune of N91m.

The offences are contrary to Sections 409 and 285 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2011.

The other two suspects, Ikwugwu and Abiodun, were arraigned before Justice Olubunmi Abike-Fadipe of the Special Offences Court sitting in Ikeja on a five-count charge bordering on conspiracy, stealing and retention of proceeds of crime, contrary to Sections 409 and 285 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2011.

One of the counts against Mathew reads: “That you, Adetunji Matthew Temidayo, sometime between 2024 and 2025 in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, while being the accountant of God’s Touch Apartment and Hotels, dishonestly converted to your own use an aggregate sum of N64m, property of God’s Touch Apartment and Hotels.”

Another count against Olaomo reads: “That you, Victor Damilare Olaomo, sometime between 2024 and 2025 in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, while being the accountant of God’s Touch Apartment and Hotels, dishonestly converted to your own use the sum of N26m, property of God’s Touch Apartment and Hotels.”

One of the charges against Ikwugwu reads: “That you, Douglas Agorom Ikwugwu, sometime in June 2025 in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, whilst being the Duty Manager at God’s Touch Apartment Hotel, dishonestly stole and converted to your own use an aggregate sum of N1,966,000 (One Million, Nine Hundred and Sixty-Six Thousand Naira), property of God’s Touch Apartment Hotel.”

The charge against Abiodun reads: “That you, Arowolo Adeniyi Abiodun, sometime in June 2025 in Lagos, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, whilst being the Auditor at God’s Touch Apartment Hotel, dishonestly stole and converted to your own use the sum of N1.5m, property of God’s Touch Apartment Hotel.”

The defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges when they were read to them.

Following their plea, prosecuting counsel, B. M. Isah and U. S. Kyari, prayed the court for trial dates and urged the court to remand the defendants in a Correctional facility pending trial. Isah further informed the court that the prosecution had been served with a bail application filed by the first defendant, Mathew.

Counsel to the first defendant, I. A. Salau did not oppose the request for a trial date but informed the court that he had filed a motion for bail and urged the court to grant the defendant bail on liberal terms.

Justice Okunuga subsequently ordered that Mathew and Olaomo be remanded in a Correctional facility and adjourned the matter till March 17, 2026, for the hearing of the bail application.

Justice Abike-Fadipe, on her part, adjourned the case involving Ikwugwu and Abiodun till March 16, 2026, for the hearing of their bail application and May 20, 2026, for the commencement of trial.