War is no longer inaugurated as it once was—there is no definitive moment of declaration, nor a clear transition from peace to conflict. What is happening today is closer to a slow slide into a continuous state, where actions accumulate without coalescing into a single, clear image. We are not witnessing a beginning we can point to, nor are we living through a climax we can agree upon; rather, we move within a prolonged tension that takes multiple forms without settling into a single identity. This shift not only changes how war erupts but also alters our perception of it, making the distinction between war and other states of tension more complex and less subject to definitive resolution or direct definition.
اضافة اعلان
In the old model, war was understood through a clear focal point: a spatially identifiable front and a line separating those fighting from those with no connection to the confrontation. This form granted the world the ability to distinguish—even in the harshest circumstances—between the inside and the outside, between the combat zone and the rest of life. It was possible for a person to live outside the war, or at least to maintain the illusion of doing so, because there were boundaries separating military action from other modes of existence. These boundaries were not always rigid, but they were sufficient to produce a clear meaning of war as an exceptional state with a conceivable beginning and end.
In the war depicted in the film All Quiet on the Western Front, this structure is vividly manifest: opposing trenches, a visible distance between the two sides, and a time for war that can be distinguished from the time of daily life. Even violence was confined within an understandable spatial geometry; it could be narrated and understood within a specific context. The "front" here is not merely a location, but a structure that organizes the experience, grants it a perceivable form, and places clear limits on what is inside the conflict and what is outside it.
However, this framework no longer functions in the same way. What was once understood as a "front" has transformed into an extended overlap between multiple levels of action. There is no longer a clear separation between the strike and the response, or between the military act and the surrounding economic and political structures. Events no longer follow a linear timeline that can be easily tracked; instead, they are intertwined in a web of influences that are difficult to untangle. In this sense, war has not disappeared; rather, it has lost its visible form and become more of a hidden structure operating beneath the surface.
When the United States and Israel move in confrontation against Iran, the conflict does not remain confined to a single point that can be followed visually or geographically. The impact moves across multiple levels, where the military structure overlaps with the financial, technical, and media sectors, causing the event to lose its initial unity. What appears to be a limited act in a specific place extends its influence across vast areas of the global system, reshaping balances that are not directly linked to the site of the action itself, but to its indirect consequences. In this sense, the front does not disappear because it was removed, but because it fragmented into small elements operating in divergent paths. There is no longer a single line that can be drawn, but a set of shifting relationships that do not settle into a fixed form. The front is no longer a place; it has become a pattern of intersection, changing according to context and forming through the interaction of multiple forces that cannot be reduced to a single image.
This transformation reshapes the human relationship with war. It is no longer possible to stand outside it as a separate event. Even those who do not live in the direct confrontation zone are affected through economic flows, energy prices, the movement of news, and shifting political expectations. The experience is no longer just spatial; it has extended into daily life itself. War no longer occurs in a distant place; it has become part of the general rhythm of life and its smallest details.
In this context, safety is no longer a stable state but becomes a temporary result of a balance that can be shaken at any moment. Stability is no longer a status quo in itself, but a state in constant formation. What appears to be "quiet" is not an end to tension, but one of its deferred forms, which can flip at any time into escalation or unexpected transformations.
Furthermore, the idea of a "decisive decision" is receding. War is no longer managed from a single point or a single moment, but through a series of partial actions, none of which seem sufficient to define the situation as a whole. This is what makes tracking its beginning or end impossible in the traditional sense, because war is no longer an event that starts and finishes; it is a process that changes constantly and reproduces itself.
In the face of this reality, modern war has become closer to a continuous pattern of "tension management" rather than a confrontation that ends in a clear victory or defeat. It is a state whose character changes rather than breaks off, reshaping itself according to the circumstances it passes through and imposing its own rhythm on everyone.
From this perspective, awareness of this shift is not an intellectual luxury but a national necessity, especially for countries like Saudi Arabia, which recognized the nature of this change early on. Enhancing strategic independence, diversifying sources of power, and building cohesive economic and technical systems is nothing but a conscious response to a war that is no longer fought on a single front, but in every direction.
Ultimately, the question about the location of the front no longer carries meaning, because the front is no longer a spatial structure to begin with. The deeper question concerns the way the conflict itself is formed when it loses its cohesive shape and turns into a network of mutual influences. At this point, man is no longer "outside" the war as previously assumed, but within its extension—even in the moments when he thinks he is far from it or capable of ignoring it.
*Saudi Writer
