Carl Schmitt and the Middle East War
The end of the ceasefire illusion
Constantin von Hoffmeister examines the mounting tensions in the Middle East through the lens of Carl Schmitt’s political realism, arguing that the latest clashes reveal a far deeper struggle over regional order and sovereignty. Beneath the headlines lies a contest over alliances, spheres of influence, and the enduring logic of friend and enemy that continues to shape international politics.
The Middle East stands once again on the edge of renewed war. Recent attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz have drawn immediate attention, yet these incidents represent only the visible surface of a much larger struggle. The real contest extends far beyond the narrow waters of the Gulf. It reaches into the political order of the entire region, where alliances shift, governments change direction, and competing powers seek lasting advantage. Every missile, every naval incident, and every diplomatic statement belongs to a broader contest over who will shape the future of the Middle East.
The attacks on shipping provide the formal trigger for rising tensions. The deeper causes lie elsewhere. Military operations rarely emerge from isolated events. They develop through long sequences of political decisions, strategic calculations, and changing balances of power. The Strait of Hormuz serves as one theatre within a conflict that stretches across Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and the Persian Gulf. Every development influences the next, producing a chain of events that steadily raises the stakes for all participants.
From this perspective, agreements with great powers possess value only so long as they coincide with existing strategic interests. States pursue their own security, influence, and survival before every other consideration. Diplomatic understandings therefore remain temporary instruments rather than permanent settlements. Once circumstances change, negotiations acquire new meanings, and previous commitments often give way to fresh calculations. The current relationship between Washington and Tehran reflects precisely this dynamic, where every pause becomes an opportunity to strengthen one’s own position before the next phase begins.
But what happens when diplomacy itself becomes another weapon of war, and every ceasefire serves as preparation for the next confrontation?
