The Changing Global Order: Power, Terror, and the Quiet Complicity of Strategic Interests 
In the increasingly kaleidoscopic theatre of global geopolitics, the traditional lines between friend and foe, pariah and partner, have become almost indistinguishably blurred. The transformation is neither abrupt nor accidental; it is a slow, calculated shift, shrouded in diplomatic euphemisms and strategic jargon. Once declared rogue states and figures with bloodied reputations now sit across tables from Western leaders, signing trade agreements, attending summits, and shaping narratives.
The elevation of Basher al-Jaloni as Syria&rsquo;s president&mdash;once alleged to have had operational ties to both ISIS and Al-Qaeda&mdash;offers a grim symbol of this shift. His international welcome, however cautious, underlines a broader and more disquieting trend: a world order where power brokers are increasingly willing to erase memory and compromise principles for the promise of stability or profit.
From Condemnation to Courting: The Uncomfortable Pivot
Only a decade ago, Western leaders spoke with uncompromising clarity. Syria was branded a state sponsor of terrorism. Qatar faced accusations of harbouring and financing radical groups. Pakistan was berated for nurturing extremism even as it proclaimed itself a frontline ally in the war on terror. These countries were boxed into moral corners&mdash;rightly or wrongly&mdash;as part of a global consensus on security and integrity.
Yet today, the very leaders who once drew red lines now redraw them in fading ink. At a high-level international forum not long ago, a senior Western official noted,&nbsp;&ldquo;We must be pragmatic in recognising shared interests, however complicated the past may be.&rdquo;&nbsp;The phrase &ldquo;strategic necessity&rdquo; has become a mantra, conveniently invoked when engaging with regimes that once topped global watchlists.
In private, the same official who once advocated sanctions against Damascus is now understood to support gradual reintegration, citing regional stability and counter-extremism as justifications. Qatar, once seen as a geopolitical outlier, is now courted as a crucial energy supplier and investment hub&mdash;its sovereign wealth now more persuasive than its past misdemeanours.
The Draft Diplomacy: A Manuscript of Moral Compromise
Drafts circulating among key foreign policy establishments betray the full measure of this shift. One particularly telling draft, still marked &ldquo;internal circulation,&rdquo; outlines a re-engagement framework with several previously isolated states. Its language is tellingly neutral&mdash;terms like &ldquo;transitional pragmatism,&rdquo; &ldquo;inclusive engagement,&rdquo; and &ldquo;path to stabilisation&rdquo; dominate the lexicon. The document stops short of absolution but unmistakably signals intent: business must resume, and memory must serve only where convenient.
This quiet diplomacy often bypasses public scrutiny. Behind the closed doors of consulates and private jets, handshakes are exchanged with men once declared enemies of civilisation. At times, these actors still carry bounties on their heads in one jurisdiction while enjoying official state receptions in another. This duplicity is not accidental; it is foundational to the modern architecture of power.
Pakistan: A Case Study in Convenient Amnesia
Consider Pakistan, the perennial puzzle of South Asian geopolitics. For years, its military and intelligence apparatus were accused of maintaining tacit links with groups labelled terrorist organisations. American generals in Afghanistan privately acknowledged the duplicity. Yet billions in aid flowed uninterrupted. Defence agreements were renewed. Drones flew with quiet Pakistani approval. Today, Pakistan is again in polite diplomatic company, its past infractions softened by necessity, its nuclear status and strategic location too valuable to ignore.
A former British foreign secretary once confided at a Chatham House event,&nbsp;&ldquo;We must deal with the Pakistan we have, not the one we wish it to be.&rdquo;&nbsp;It was a tacit acceptance that realpolitik trumps righteous indignation.
The Economics of Forgiveness
There is no greater solvent of principle than economic self-interest. In an energy-starved world, Qatar&rsquo;s liquefied natural gas is a geopolitical treasure. In post-conflict reconstruction, Syria&rsquo;s markets offer fertile ground for infrastructure giants. Defence contractors, investment bankers, and oil executives do not operate in a vacuum. Their calculus influences diplomacy as much as&mdash;or more than&mdash;moral judgment.
Indeed, a senior Gulf leader recently said,&nbsp;&ldquo;The world has moved on. It is time we all did too.&rdquo;&nbsp;His country, which once found itself in isolation for allegedly supporting extremist elements, is now a hub of international diplomacy. Western leaders queue to secure contracts, while once-critical commentary is replaced with talk of mutual growth and shared security.
Terrorists Turned Statesmen
The most jarring element of this new order is the individual rehabilitation of figures once designated as terrorists. It is no longer unusual to see such individuals welcomed into global forums. In some cases, their names are quietly removed from international watchlists; in others, they are granted immunity under the guise of fostering reconciliation.
In one surreal instance, a man once dubbed &ldquo;the financier of jihad&rdquo; sat across from Western dignitaries at a security conference. The dialogue centred on &ldquo;countering radicalisation&rdquo;&mdash;a bitter irony not lost on observers. The man&rsquo;s transformation from fugitive to delegate is not just symbolic; it is instructive of a world where history can be revised in the interest of geopolitics.
As a prominent European leader, once known for his hard stance on terrorism, recently reflected:&nbsp;&ldquo;The future demands compromise. Even with those we once vowed never to forgive.&rdquo;&nbsp;His admission, however pragmatic, underlines the ethical erosion underway.
The Paradox of the War on Terror
What began as a moral crusade in the early 2000s has metastasised into a transactional game. The war on terror has lost its coherence, if not its vocabulary. Countries bombed into regime change are now welcomed back into the fold. Figures once hunted are now feted. Every principle once trumpeted&mdash;sovereignty, human rights, justice&mdash;now bows to the logic of convenience.
And yet, the danger is not merely moral; it is strategic. In legitimising compromised actors without meaningful accountability, the global order risks emboldening future transgressors. Terror becomes negotiable. Memory becomes malleable. Impunity, once reserved for victors, now belongs to all who can offer utility.
Dissent in the Shadows
Not all are silent. Within diplomatic circles, there remains a faction that views this trajectory with alarm.&nbsp;&ldquo;We are normalising impunity,&rdquo;&nbsp;said a retired European diplomat recently,&nbsp;&ldquo;and in doing so, we are weakening the very foundations of global order.&rdquo;&nbsp;Human rights groups, too, continue to highlight the dangers of treating former sponsors of terror as rehabilitated allies without demanding transparency or justice.
But these voices are increasingly marginalised, drowned out by the din of economic interests and strategic calculations. In summits and bilateral meetings, talk of morality is relegated to footnotes.
Toward a More Honest World Order
What is needed now is not more strategic doublespeak but a candid reckoning. If engagement with formerly condemned states is necessary, let it be conducted with open acknowledgment of past crimes, not the pretence of innocence. Let leaders declare, plainly, that interests are being prioritised over values&mdash;not hide behind hollow phrases of reform and transition.
History does not forget as easily as policy does. A world that reinvents its villains as partners must ask itself: what then does justice mean? Who holds the moral compass?
As one elder statesman once warned,&nbsp;&ldquo;Those who sup with the devil must use a long spoon.&rdquo; Today, the spoons are short and the suppers frequent. If the global order is indeed changing, let us at least have the courage to admit what we are becoming.

US President Donald Trump meeting Syria's in-charge president Basher al-Jaloni

Strategic interests now trump old red lines as terror-linked leaders gain global legitimacy

From Pariahs to Partners: The New World Order

Strategic interests now trump old red lines as terror-linked leaders gain global legitimacy

May 19, 2025 | 19:01 IST