Zero‑sum exhaustion: The new shape of global conflict

The major geopolitical confrontations of our time have entered a phase that can only be described as zero‑sum exhaustion—a stage in which no actor wins, no actor loses decisively, and no actor possesses the capacity to impose a clear endgame. Modern wars have become long-distance marathons in which the objective is not victory but the avoidance of defeat. This makes them more draining, more ambiguous, and more politically corrosive than any previous form of conflict.

Regional and global powers involved in today’s crises can no longer dictate final outcomes. Armies advance, militias proliferate, economies bleed, yet the strategic balance remains unchanged: there are no victors.

This structural shift has pushed the world into a new model of “permanent low‑intensity warfare”—conflicts that never ignite enough to be resolved, and never cool enough to be forgotten.

The world has quietly abandoned the idea of decisive war. What matters now is managing conflict, not ending it. A decisive victory would require responsibility: reconstruction, governance, security, and long‑term political commitment. Zero‑sum exhaustion, by contrast, frees all parties from accountability. It turns war into a suspended condition—administered remotely, without moral or political cost. In this logic of “stability through disorder,” conflict becomes a tool of leverage rather than a contest with a conclusion.

READ: Israel faced ‘unprecedented, sustained’ bombardment during Iran war, official says

The Trump–Iran confrontation was an early and vivid example of this new paradigm: a war declared without a battlefield, a confrontation without a front line, promises without outcomes. No one fought, yet everyone behaved as if war were imminent. It was a distilled version of the global condition today: endless tension, limitless threats, and a complete absence of political horizon.

What appears to be paralysis is, in many cases, deliberate strategy. Major powers understand that resolving conflicts forces them into obligations they would rather avoid. Managing them, however, allows influence without responsibility. Thus wars become open files—administered, not solved; exploited, not concluded.

This dynamic is dragging the world into a dangerous era of frozen conflicts that unsettle global markets, fuel inflation, disrupt supply chains, turn energy into a weapon, currencies into hostages, and economies into undeclared battlefields. These are wars that do not always fire bullets, but they fire prices, uncertainty, and fear.

The global map makes the pattern unmistakable:

Ukraine entering its third year with no end in sight;

Gaza transformed into a conflict that must not be allowed to end;

Yemen suspended between a truce without peace and a war without victory;

Sudan collapsing in a conflict no actor wishes to resolve.

READ: Turkish president says Israeli slanders attempt to cover up Gaza genocide

These cases reveal a world in which conflicts are managed rather than settled, and zero‑sum exhaustion has become the operating system of modern warfare.

International institutions—whether the UN Security Council or regional organizations—are unable to impose peace or even a durable ceasefire. Diplomacy has devolved into a mechanism for deflection and delay, not resolution. International law has lost its authority, and legitimacy has become a tool used by major powers when convenient and discarded when not.

The true victims of these unwinnable wars are the people who live inside them. While political and military elites busy themselves with the choreography of conflict management, ordinary citizens pay the price: their economic security, their social stability, their children’s futures.

It is a moment that aligns with the idea of “manufactured misery,” where suffering becomes a political resource and crisis becomes endlessly recyclable.

The Iranian case illustrates this with painful clarity. Despite the rhetoric, Trump’s pressure campaign did not help the Iranian people, did not weaken the theocratic regime, and did not curb Iran’s regional ambitions. Instead, Iran emerged from the confrontation without defeat, without accountability, and without internal reform—yet with greater room for regional manoeuvering. It is the perfect example of a conflict that ends without ending.

This is the “rationality” of 21st century leadership: a political logic that sustains oppressive systems, negotiates with them, and then presents the resulting stalemate as a promise of “regional stability.” It is a rationality that seeks not solutions but time—delaying the explosion, freezing the catastrophe, and managing the world as a series of suspended disasters.

OPINION: The arrogance of the “Guardian”: How Velayati turns falsehoods into foreign policy

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.