As last year drew to a close, the world was left uncertain about the continuity of an already frail international order that was reeling beneath successive shocks and disruptions. Then the new year brought us certainty: this “order” has indeed ended and whatever residual credibility it had has now collapsed.
The world has experienced similar conditions before during the interwar period between 1918 and 1939. The international system’s structures were then hollowed out at a time when the ruling powers were unable to assert control, and the rising powers had not yet consolidated their grip. This left a vacuum that was quickly filled by far-right populists of the fascist and Nazi varieties.
As the Italian philosopher and political theorist Antonio Gramsci wrote at the time, “now is the time of monsters.”
Extremist populists, regardless of particular ideological affiliation, do not create new realities. Their skill lies in reading the weakness of existing institutions and the sense of resentment and despair among the masses. They ride waves of discontent, stoking anger and promising changes that play on widespread grievances. Once they reach power, they cash in on the populist tides that swept them into office and begin to implement their demagogic agendas.
They often give vent to the xenophobia that they themselves helped foment, even against peaceful allies, resulting in the systematic persecution of minorities. They impose restrictions on trade and investment except for favoured insiders. Then, when these measures fail to produce the promised results, they blame the “old order,” foreign conspiracies, and domestic subversion for hardships that they themselves created or aggravated.
In order to understand and prepare for the possible dangers that lie ahead, it is useful to consult reports prepared by institutions that customarily publish year-end assessments. These should not be treated as mystical predictions, but rather as insightful readings of current trends as a basis for forecasting what the future may hold in store.
Of the many reports I have read recently, three will be drawn on here. The first is the Future Risks Report published by AXA, one of the world’s leading insurance companies. Like its peers, this not only monitors and classifies risks, but also assesses their potential economic costs. The second is the US Foreign Policy magazine’s “Top 10 Global Risks” report, issued since 2017. The third is the “Top Risks” report, produced by the Eurasia Group led by political analyst Ian Bremmer.
As we set out to weigh the risks and expectations cited in these reports, we should apply two lenses: one is that we have entered a new reality now that the global order has been consigned to history; the second is that these reports are inevitably shaped by their places of origin and their Western affiliation. We in our region should take from them what most aligns with our priorities and interests and set aside the rest.
The AXA report begins by noting that 95 per cent of experts and 93 per cent of the general public it surveyed agree that crises have multiplied and intensified in recent years. Around 85 per cent of both groups believe that the most important risks can be at least partially prevented through precautionary measures.
The experts consulted ranked the risks as follows: (1) climate change; (2) geopolitical instability; (3) cybersecurity risks; (4) AI and big data risks; (5) social unrest and tensions; (6) natural resources and biodiversity loss; (7) macroeconomic risks; (8) energy risks; (9) financial instability risks; and (10) demographic changes or shifts.
Foreign Policy ranked the “Top 10 Global Risks” for 2026 as follows: (1) US President Trump’s economic morass; (2) the further fragmentation of the global order; (3) US foreign-policy reorientation with the adoption of the “Donroe Doctrine” – a revived version of the 19th- century Monroe Doctrine asserting the US claim to the entire Western Hemisphere and warning that it would regard any outside intervention there as an act of aggression; (4) the dawn of the third nuclear era driven by artificial intelligence and cyber risks (the first two eras were the Cold War arms race followed by the post-Cold War nuclear arms reduction agreements; (5) the Gen Z rebellion; (6) a more empowered Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s increased influence; (7) climate change; (8) a persistently unstable Middle East; (9) AI-related technological disruption; and (10) destabilisation in the Asia-Pacific region.
The Eurasia Group ranks the main risks as follows: (1) the US political revolution; (2) the energy technology gap; (3) the “Donroe Doctrine” – see the Monroe Doctrine above; (4) Europe under siege (from political crises); (5) Russia’s second front (the claim Russia is bent on escalating the war beyond Ukraine); (6) state capitalism with American characteristics; (7) China’s deflation trap; (8) AI “eating” its users; (9) a “zombie” USMCA – the risk of trade uncertainty due to an ineffective US-Mexico-Canada Agreement; and (10) the weaponisation of water.
In a forthcoming article, I will review the risk and opportunity priorities for the Arab region, selecting from these reports what most merits focus. Our region is exposed, directly or indirectly, to all the above-mentioned risks – albeit to varying degrees – even if the epicentres are remote from us.
We suffer from water insecurity, especially in the light of climate change, energy insecurity, particularly given the conflicts over fossil fuels and the haphazard and inequitable nature of the energy transition, and long-standing and emerging geopolitical conflicts affect our region. There are also the impacts of economic and financial crises, including the debt crisis.
One risk that the reports do not mention explicitly – although it is linked to energy, water, and geopolitical conflict – is food security.
What can we do in the context of the breakdown of the rules of the international order and the disintegration of its last flimsy veils – i.e the rubric of democracy promotion, protecting freedoms and human rights, and nation-building behind which the Western powers once cloaked their actual intentions?
The required course of action is simple to describe, but it demands the utmost diligence in implementation. It requires fortifying the state system from within by upholding the rule of law, protecting rights, localising development, and closing the gaps and pretexts for foreign intervention.
This article also appears in Arabic in Wednesday’s edition of Asharq Al-Awsat.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 15 January 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: