This month has captured the paradox of the modern world with unusual clarity.
Conflicts intensify. Rivalries sharpen. Global sporting spectacles pepper the media with universal stories of triumph and heartbreak. Sacred traditions unfurl. Diplomatic initiatives invoke the language of peace.
Events that span regions and cultures are not isolated episodes, but interwoven threads that reveal how contemporary geopolitics is shaped not only by military power and strategic competition, but also by identity, symbolism, legitimacy, and the enduring rhythms of civilization.
In the Middle East, Israel’s determination to disarm Hamas continues to reverberate, and talks between the US and Iran loom large. These negotiations exist alongside unmistakable military signaling, with American deployments and Iranian exercises underscoring the fragile balance between deterrence and escalation.
The uncertainty surrounding these negotiations is itself geopolitically significant. Diplomacy, in this context, is not merely a technical process: It is a high-stakes game that could either stabilize a volatile environment or make way for broader confrontation. The prospect that dialogue may lead either to agreement or to conflict illustrates a defining feature of 21st-century international politics: the coexistence of engagement and brinkmanship.
Technology, diplomacy, and the new geopolitical balance
At the same time, persistent tensions between China and Taiwan hang in the East Asian air and far beyond. Military signaling, economic interdependence, technological rivalry, and diplomatic ambiguity combine to produce one of the most sensitive global flashpoints. Taipei’s centrality to global semiconductor production ties regional stability to worldwide technological and economic systems.
The US plays a pivotal role across both theaters. The potential for American intervention influences deterrence calculations, alliance structures, strategic expectations, and diplomatic leverage. But contemporary geopolitical influence is rarely exerted through hard power alone. Legitimacy, credibility, and soft power increasingly shape how strength is perceived and contested.
In mid-February 2026, the interplay between hard reality and symbolic unity is particularly striking, as moments of global cultural and civic resonance unfold among the geopolitical tensions.
The lunar New Year, ushering in the Year of the Fire Horse, is celebrated across East Asia and throughout global Chinese communities. This civilizational observance is structured around renewal, reflection, and continuity. Within traditional symbolism, the horse represents energy, resilience, and forward movement – all the more so when it is the Fire Horse. These themes weigh powerfully within societies navigating uncertainty and strategic tension.
Taiwan’s celebration reflects a nuanced duality. Cultural continuity with Chinese civilization coexists with political distinctiveness. Tradition anchors identity in an environment defined by geopolitical complexity. Heritage is not merely ceremonial in this context. It is laced with questions of belonging and recognition.
Added to this convergence, the first night of Ramadan begins this month. Ramadan reshapes daily rhythms across vast regions, emphasizing reflection, discipline, and communal cohesion. In societies marked by political strain and regional conflict, it provides a continuity that transcends the immediacy of crisis. Sacred calendars reinforce collective identity and stability within environments defined by uncertainty.
The Jewish dimension offers further insight into these parallel rhythms. Jewish history is sculpted by cycles of renewal embedded within ritual, memory, and cultural continuity. Across centuries, Jewish communities have often navigated precarious political landscapes through intellectual achievement, education, and communal cohesion. Tradition has functioned as both a spiritual expression and a resilience strategy.
Modern Israel reflects aspects of this inheritance. Innovation, education, and technological creativity operate alongside security imperatives. The nation’s global influence derives as much from human capital and intellectual contribution as from military capability. Israel’s soft power – however challenged at the moment – emerges not as an alternative to hard security, but as its complement.
Taiwan presents a structurally comparable logic. Its global significance derives less from territorial scale than from specialization, expertise, and technological centrality, with human capital as a strategic resource, and innovation as influence. In both societies, resilience is cultivated across multiple dimensions.
And then there is the inauguration of President Trump’s Board of Peace. Whatever its practical implications, the initiative underscores the enduring role of symbolism and narrative in contemporary politics. In an era defined by conflict and rivalry, the invocation of peace becomes itself a strategic gesture. Language, perception, and signaling shape geopolitical environments alongside material capabilities.
Global culture joins diplomacy and tradition through the Winter Olympics in Milan and Cortina. The Olympic Games remain one of the few arenas where nations gather within a shared symbolic framework. Athletic competition intersects with diplomacy, prestige, and identity projection. Athletes become ambassadors; participation becomes a performance of belonging.
For Taiwan, whose international status remains uniquely constrained, sporting visibility functions as a form of diplomatic engagement. Representation, even under political limitations, signals presence within the international community. For Israel and many other states, international sport offers a semblance of integration amid the minefields of geopolitics.
Viewed together, this month’s spectacular convergence illuminates a broader transformation of the nature of power. Traditional geopolitics emphasized territory, population, and military strength; contemporary international politics increasingly rewards adaptability, technological relevance, legitimacy, and narrative framing. Soft power, cultural continuity, symbolic participation, and perception management are no longer peripheral considerations: They are central to how influence is cultivated.
This simultaneity reveals a fundamental truth about the modern international system. Conflict and continuity coexist. Wars and negotiations, rivalries and rituals, sporting spectacles and diplomatic initiatives all unfold simultaneously. The world does not pause for crises. Instead, geopolitical tensions and civilizational rhythms shape and amplify one another.
The Year of the Fire Horse evokes movement and resilience. Ramadan evokes reflection and discipline. The Olympics evoke excellence and shared humanity. Diplomatic negotiations evoke the fragile balance between confrontation and accommodation. Political initiatives evoke the enduring appeal of peace as a narrative and an aspiration.
For societies navigating volatile environments, this coexistence is not theoretical – it is reality. Identity projection, cultural participation, technological leadership, and symbolic engagement operate alongside deterrence and defense. Survival and influence require multidimensional strategies that span the physical, psychological, and symbolic.
For major powers like the US, the lesson is equally clear. Credibility is measured not only by military commitments but also by the capacity to sustain institutions, narratives, and global spaces where interaction remains possible even amid tension.
Ultimately, the defining challenge of our era is not only conflict management. It is navigating a world where geopolitical tension, cultural continuity, religious observance, and symbolic politics unfold side by side. In such a world, realism must coexist with strategic humility and cultural literacy, recognizing that power is shaped as much by perception, identity, and legitimacy as by force.
The writer is a Senior Fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) and a professor of international relations and European studies in the Department of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.