One of the most significant events of 2025 was when the United States captured former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores.?Regardless of how the Venezuelan public perceived them, a question had to be asked: was it justified? As usual, Western and Eastern allies were confused but kept mum. It instilled confidence within the Trump administration that it was the main architect of the world order.
Then came the aggressive push to take over Greenland. It put Europe and Canada in a complicated position. Trump also talked about taking over Canada and making it a US state. These threats did not seem idle after the capture of Maduro. It made these nations wonder whether he would actually do it. Trump backed down from taking Greenland after reaching a framework deal on Arctic security at the World Economic Forum in Davos with NATO allies.
The so-called order is what produced disasters like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
At Davos, the new Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, made an “impactful” speech. He talked about a deviation from the rules-based international world order and famously stated that “if you are not on the dinner table, then you are on the menu”. Although focused on Canada, this “impactful” speech was made in reference to the controversial Greenland takeover. The reference is important here because Canada and European nations made a clear distinction between Venezuela and Greenland, where any criticism of what Washington did with the former was completely absent, which defined the division between the Global North and the Global South. This divide also shapes how conflicts like Ukraine, Sudan, Lebanon, and Palestine receive attention.
Just a month after these theatrics, the?United States and Israel attacked Iran. Washington and Israel saw this as an opportunity, as in late December 2025, continuing through January this year, nationwide protests took place in Iran against the government. Despite suffering heavy losses, particularly the killing of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Iranian security chief Ali Larijani, Iran proved to be quite a headache. Washington’s allies were dealing with their own issues at home, particularly the economy, and an attack on Iran actually made it worse, due to Tehran’s leverage regarding the critical Strait of Hormuz, which sent oil prices skyrocketing as a result. The war continued, and while the original aim was to topple the government of Iran, it did not work. In fact, it even gave Iran a reason to acquire a nuclear weapon, something that would anger many international players.
During the events of the war, Tehran targeted Israel along with many Gulf countries; the hardest hit was the United Arab Emirates. Once again, Mark Carney’s speech becomes relevant here: a rules-based system no longer works. While Iran was criticised for its attacks on Gulf countries, it exposed the fact that the Gulf states need to focus on building their own military rather than relying on US bases and viewing themselves as immune. Saudi
Despite Washington’s claim of victory and even Iran’s claims, no side actually emerged victorious. That is why they were brought to the negotiating table twice, thanks to Pakistan, Qatar, and other countries. Attacks followed despite negotiations, as it was a desperate attempt from both to prove who was the winner.
Going back to the Canadian Prime Minister’s speech, yes, it is true that the rules-based international order has changed, but since he was referring to the Global North, it did not mean much to Western nations. The so-called order is what produced disasters like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Other examples are the Vietnam War and France’s influence on Africa, which triggered protests recently. So that brings the question: in light of the events that happened with Venezuela, Greenland, Carney’s speech, and the Iran war, who is the actual winner here? It’s the Global South.
Iran is not a perfect society, and the Mahsa Amini protests prove that, but what Tehran did was reveal Western hypocrisy and could be used as an example of Carney’s speech; Tehran was on the opposite dinner table with injuries, but certainly not on the menu.
For other Global South nations, it has showcased that they need to stop relying on Western allies and focus on building and investing in their military, investment, and education. It also has given a message that today it is Iran, tomorrow it could be any other country. There would be coups, civil wars, and bombings in order to control the narrative, but defending and forcing the other side to come to the negotiating table prevents them from being preyed on and can be considered a victory. The Global South might have emerged victorious, but unless the realisation sets in, they have won the “battle” and not the actual war.
The writer is a communications professional and journalist. He can be reached at contact@turyalazamkhan