Why some wars are quickly resolved and others left to linger

However, President Donald Trump sees things much differently. He sees a country that has milked the US financially for a conflict that, according to him, is "not my war". In his view, US support comes at a price; it should not be handed out for free, and he has since sought to secure some lucrative minerals deals in exchange for continued American backing.

This clearly demonstrates that the spirit of consensus that generally prevailed throughout the 20th and early 21st century has given way to a form of diplomacy that more closely resembles the crude bargaining practices of market traders.

This same reductionist approach can be seen in other conflicts around the world: if there is something to gain financially from resolving any given conflict, there could be diplomatic capital invested in doing so. A prime example of this was the relatively quick resolution to the conflict between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the US played a key role.

Contrast this to Sudan, where the war has been raging for more than two years, yet the global community seems to be dragging its feet in securing a resolution to that conflict. In this conflict, stakeholders seem to think that the continuation—rather than the resolution—of the conflict can secure them more profits.

The magical and sudden resolution of the long-running conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is further evidence of this approach, where whether it is the oil fields and pipelines coursing through Azerbaijani territory or the mineral wealth beneath Congolese soil, offers far more lucrative stakes to American business circles than the tangled, blood-soaked histories of Darfur, Khartoum or El Fasher.

In this scenario, wars are left to fester if there is little financial incentive to halt the bloodshed. Dozens of such wars grind on around the world—their longevity ensured only by their failure to meet the new, cold criteria for international intervention.

Messianic approach

The second approach sees a dangerous return to the Manifest Destiny mindset of the 19th century, where ethnic or racial supremacy can be a justification for the total annihilation of an indigenous population. Much like the eradication of the Native American population at the hands of white European settlers in the New America, Israel has been accused of committing genocide in Gaza in an effort to ethnically cleanse the territory of its indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. 

Read more: The US is destroying the international system along with Gaza

In this scenario, images of starving children, sniped bodies of hungry Palestinians lining the razor-wire cages of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, and missile strikes targeting journalists, hospitals and displacement shelters haven't moved Western powers to intervene to stop the blood that has been shed now for almost two years.

Instead, these powers are complicit despite the fact that supporting Israel in its war has become increasingly unpopular among their electoral bases, demonstrating the entrenched racial biases of the elites in power. Here, economic and electoral calculations fade in the face of messianism and millenarian delusion.