As Washington and Beijing compete for global dominance, Jordanian businessman Talal Abu-Ghazaleh warns of a coming economic depression, weakened international institutions and a geopolitical realignment that could leave the Middle East paying a disproportionate price.
The international order that has shaped global politics for decades is facing mounting pressure as competition between the United States and China extends beyond trade and technology into military influence, energy security and the future of global governance.
For countries across the Middle East, the consequences of that rivalry are increasingly difficult to separate from regional conflicts. Decisions made in Washington and Beijing can influence everything from the movement of oil through strategic waterways to the economic security of nations already struggling with instability, debt and dependence on foreign markets.
Jordanian businessman and economic commentator Talal Abu-Ghazaleh has offered a particularly stark assessment of the changes underway, warning that the world could be approaching a major economic depression alongside a broader redistribution of global power.
Speaking on Jordan’s Roya television programme Nabd Al Balad, Abu-Ghazaleh argued that the confrontation between Washington and Beijing is no longer simply a contest between two powerful economies. Instead, he described it as a struggle over who will determine the rules governing the next international order.
His warnings come as governments confront an increasingly fragmented geopolitical landscape, where longstanding alliances face pressure, international institutions struggle to enforce their decisions and regional conflicts risk becoming entangled with the strategic ambitions of major powers.
Yet the prediction of an approaching global depression remains disputed. The International Monetary Fund’s October economic outlook projects continued worldwide growth, although it warns that geopolitical escalation, high energy costs and financial vulnerabilities could undermine that resilience.
The Contest for Global Leadership
For much of the period following the Cold War, the United States occupied an unrivalled position in international affairs, exercising considerable influence through its military alliances, financial institutions, technological leadership and the global role of the dollar.
China’s economic and technological expansion has increasingly challenged elements of that dominance.
Beijing has expanded its international trade relationships, invested heavily in infrastructure and advanced its technological and military capabilities. Washington, meanwhile, has sought to preserve its strategic advantages through security partnerships, trade restrictions and policies aimed at protecting critical industries.
Abu-Ghazaleh sees this confrontation as a fundamental disagreement over the distribution of international power.
In his assessment, the United States is determined to maintain its established position, while China increasingly considers itself capable of exercising a greater role in global leadership.
The competition has consequently expanded into areas once treated primarily as economic matters, including semiconductor production, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing and access to strategically important resources.
Taiwan remains among the most dangerous potential flashpoints.
Beijing claims the self-governing island as part of China and has not ruled out using force to achieve unification. The United States maintains substantial unofficial ties with Taiwan and opposes unilateral changes to the status quo by force.
A military confrontation involving Taiwan could disrupt major shipping routes, semiconductor supply chains and financial markets, with consequences extending far beyond East Asia.
Although both Washington and Beijing have powerful incentives to avoid a direct war, the possibility of miscalculation remains a significant concern.
The Middle East Caught Between Competing Powers
For the Middle East, the growing rivalry raises a question that has repeatedly shaped the region’s modern history: To what extent will local populations bear the consequences of conflicts driven by interests beyond their borders?
Abu-Ghazaleh argues that American strategic activity in the region should be understood partly through Washington’s larger competition with China.
The region occupies a critical position in international commerce. Its energy resources, maritime corridors and proximity to Europe, Africa and Asia make it strategically important to major global economies.
The Strait of Hormuz, the Red Sea and the Suez Canal illustrate how regional instability can rapidly develop into an international economic problem.
Disruptions to energy production or maritime transport can raise prices, affect supply chains and place additional pressure on countries far removed from the original confrontation.
For Muslim-majority nations already confronting conflict, financial uncertainty or humanitarian emergencies, those disruptions carry particularly serious consequences.
The Palestinian territories offer another illustration of the wider question of international power and accountability.
For decades, Palestinian demands for self-determination and protection under international law have collided with geopolitical calculations, diplomatic disagreements and the limitations of international enforcement mechanisms.
The resulting debate extends beyond the effectiveness of individual institutions. It concerns whether internationally recognised rights can be meaningfully protected when enforcement depends heavily on the political interests of powerful states.
Abu-Ghazaleh warned against any arrangement that could facilitate the displacement of Palestinians or undermine their national identity.
He emphasised the importance of Palestinians remaining on their land and cautioned against proposals that could turn alternative citizenship arrangements into mechanisms for permanent dispossession.
His position reflects a broader concern across the region that geopolitical negotiations must not come at the expense of the rights of populations most directly affected by conflict.
International Institutions Face a Crisis of Authority
One of Abu-Ghazaleh’s central arguments concerns the growing distance between the formal existence of international institutions and their practical ability to influence state behaviour.
The United Nations and other multilateral organisations continue to provide frameworks for diplomacy, humanitarian assistance and international law.
Their ability to compel powerful states to comply with decisions, however, remains limited by political structures and the willingness of governments to cooperate.
The United Nations Security Council illustrates this difficulty particularly clearly.
Its five permanent members possess veto powers that can prevent substantive resolutions from being adopted, even when a majority of council members favour action.
This arrangement has long attracted criticism from states and communities that regard it as an unequal distribution of international authority.
For countries experiencing war, occupation or humanitarian crises, the distinction between diplomatic condemnation and enforceable protection can have immediate human consequences.
The challenge facing international institutions is therefore not simply whether they can produce declarations or resolutions, but whether they can respond effectively when the interests of powerful states conflict with the principles those institutions were established to uphold.
Still, institutional limitations do not necessarily mean the international legal order has become irrelevant. Humanitarian agencies, international courts and diplomatic mechanisms continue to play important roles, even when enforcement is incomplete.
The deeper concern is that selective enforcement can weaken public confidence in the legitimacy of the international system itself.
A Global Depression? The Economic Evidence Is More Complicated
Abu-Ghazaleh’s most consequential prediction is that the international economy could enter a period of severe depression.
Such an outcome would have profound implications for global employment, international investment, public finances and household living standards.
But economic forecasts do not yet establish that a global depression is inevitable.
In its October 2026 World Economic Outlook, the International Monetary Fund projected global economic growth of 3.1 percent in 2026 and 3.4 percent in 2027.
Those figures indicate slower and uneven economic expansion, rather than an expected worldwide contraction.
The IMF nevertheless identified several serious vulnerabilities, including geopolitical escalation, renewed trade tensions, fiscal pressures and uncertainty surrounding investment in artificial intelligence.
The distinction matters.
A global depression involves a prolonged and exceptionally severe economic collapse. Slower growth, financial volatility and even recessions in individual countries do not automatically amount to such a scenario.
Abu-Ghazaleh’s assessment should therefore be understood as a warning about a possible future crisis, rather than a confirmed economic forecast.
What is considerably clearer is that economic vulnerability is distributed unequally.
Countries with limited fiscal resources, heavy import dependence or weak domestic production may find themselves particularly exposed to sudden increases in energy prices, disrupted shipping routes and higher borrowing costs.
In those economies, global instability can quickly translate into more expensive food, reduced employment opportunities and additional pressure on public services.
Why Economic Independence Matters for Muslim Nations
Beyond his predictions about international conflict, Abu-Ghazaleh advanced a practical argument about the importance of national economic resilience.
He urged countries to strengthen domestic capabilities in food production, medicine, technology and education rather than depend excessively on external suppliers.
For the wider Muslim world, this argument raises questions about economic development, regional cooperation and strategic independence.
Many Muslim-majority countries possess substantial natural resources, large populations, important geographical positions and growing educational institutions.
Yet their economic circumstances differ considerably, and several remain exposed to external supply chains, imported technologies or fluctuations in commodity markets.
Natural resources alone do not guarantee economic sovereignty.
A country may export energy while relying on foreign suppliers for advanced machinery, medical equipment, agricultural technology and critical digital infrastructure.
Such dependencies can become particularly dangerous during international crises.
Abu-Ghazaleh’s proposed emphasis on domestic production and technological education offers one possible response, although achieving greater resilience also requires investment, competent institutions, regional trade and sustained economic reform.
Greater cooperation among Muslim-majority economies could help diversify markets and strengthen essential industries, but it would not eliminate the need for productive international partnerships.
The objective is not necessarily economic isolation. It is the ability to maintain essential services and exercise meaningful policy choices during periods of external pressure.
A Changing World Does Not Guarantee a Fairer One
The possibility of a less US-dominated international system has generated considerable discussion across the Global South.
For governments dissatisfied with existing geopolitical arrangements, the expansion of alternative economic partnerships may offer opportunities to diversify trade, financing and diplomatic relationships.
Yet a shift from one dominant power to a more competitive international system would not automatically produce greater justice or stability.
Major powers, whether established or emerging, pursue strategic interests that do not always align with the aspirations of smaller states.
China’s growing international influence presents economic opportunities, but its policies, security interests and political relationships also warrant independent scrutiny.
Similarly, criticism of American foreign policy does not require dismissing the significance of international legal principles, democratic accountability or the economic relationships that connect countries across political divisions.
For Muslim societies, the question is not simply which superpower will exercise greater influence.
It is whether governments can strengthen their institutions, protect their populations, preserve political independence and cooperate effectively without becoming instruments of external competition.
That question becomes especially urgent where war, displacement and economic insecurity have already weakened communities.
An Uncertain Future, With Consequences Far Beyond Washington and Beijing
Abu-Ghazaleh’s warnings offer a dramatic interpretation of a world experiencing substantial geopolitical change.
Whether his prediction of a global depression materialises remains uncertain. Equally uncertain is whether competition between the United States and China will produce a negotiated adjustment in international relations or lead to a more dangerous confrontation.
What is evident is that economic security, military strategy and international diplomacy are becoming increasingly interconnected.
For the Middle East and the wider Muslim world, the stakes extend beyond the fortunes of competing superpowers.
They include the ability of societies to protect their sovereignty, sustain essential industries, defend internationally recognised rights and prevent external rivalries from deepening existing humanitarian crises.
The international system may indeed be entering a period of profound transformation.
But the measure of the order that eventually emerges will not be determined solely by which country commands the greatest military power or controls the largest economy.
It will also be judged by whether smaller nations have a meaningful voice, whether international law is applied consistently and whether ordinary people are protected from the destructive consequences of great-power competition.
For millions living in regions already burdened by conflict, those questions are not abstract matters of geopolitics.
They are questions of security, dignity and survival.
