The downing of a Russian aircraft by Turkish forces has made imminent the near inevitability of the Syrian conflict turning into a global one. This conflict, right from the very beginning, was ripe for global conflict for a multitude of reasons. For one, just when Russia was not happy with overtures in Libya, Syria falls right in Russia’s backyard and thus falls directly under its circle of influence. Secondly, Syria is strategic for Iran for being its only ally in the Arab world and a vital connection for Iranian influence spanning from Iran to Lebanon. The Arab regimes apprehensive of increasing Iranian influence consider Syria as the weakest link in regional Iranian enclosure and thus were looking for ways towards regime change. And when the situation in Syria was bound to explode, because of its Kurdish problem, another key regional power, Turkey, could not let it turn into a victory for the Kurds in Syrian and Iraqi Kurdistan. To counter this Turkey not only sided with elements like al Nusra but also facilitated Islamic State (IS) along with other Arab and western regimes. So Syria has become a battleground for proxy warfare for regional dominance between global players. As the conflict spirals, it shows all the signs of turning into a full blown global conflict expanding first to the Middle East and then to the theatres of Eastern Europe and Eurasia, and from there to other parts of the globe. In the undercurrents of this, catalysing this brewing global conflict is the clash of civilisations prophesised by academic Samuel P Huntington, coming to the fore particularly through terrorist activities in the west carried out by extremist Islamist organisations. The theory is a self-fulfilling prophecy or “reflexivity phenomena”, as described by George Soros (inspired by Karl Popper’s work on open society). If more and more people start believing in this prophesised clash of civilisations, the clash will become inevitable. A lot has been said to refute the theory by many an eminent leader and scholar, including Benazir Bhutto, but the theory has many buyers as well and is reflected in many policy decisions, particularly among isolationists and neocons. The theory, among other things, suggests that the clash of civilisations ultimately will be a clash for aversion towards western values. Now, ironically, if we are talking about the western values of inclusion, equality and humanity, there can be no distinction based on west versus the rest and thus the theory collapses under its own weight. And if by western values it means white supremacist values, there is nothing new to be averse to for the other civilisations. The theory contributes to xenophobic fear, which is used as the pretext for many a global conflict launched for vested and power interests. The theory also misses the key conflicts between the civilisations. For instance, the UK’s fear of a Europe dominated by Germany remains a far prominent national security concern than happenings in Afghanistan. Conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia trumps any conflict Iran may have with the US or the west. Not only that but once xenophobia grows, the difficulty in distinguishing between Muslim versus non-Muslim South Asians for instance will make South Asians align more closely against the xenophobes rather than Hindus deciding to side with west for their ‘cultural’ alignment. Just as all politics is local, so are all conflicts local and rooted in commercial and geostrategic interests and history. And it is those interests and considerations that will ultimately define how events get shaped going forward. We have discussed above what makes Syria so special. The crisis in Yemen is a continuation of what is happening in Syria. If Islamabad and Washington do not get their act together fast, the same is ready to blow up in Afghanistan. And, in the process, the monster of Islamic State (IS) that has been created is coming to bite the hand feeding it, thus adding a new dimension to the conflict. With Russia fearing encirclement by the west in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, it is adamant to not turn Syria into an enemy territory. On the other hand, fears of Russian expansion are making many in Europe uneasy, particularly in France and the UK. Thus, the Syrian conflict, with little fuel added, has the potential of turning into a conflict between Iranian and Saudi backed elements in many parts of the Middle East, a wider conflict between Turkey and Russia and a still wider conflict between the west and Russia in eastern Europe. If that happens, it would not be far before the tensions in the Asia Pacific, Africa and Eurasia drag China into the conflict. Whose side who will be on is fluid right now but one thing is for sure: all the necessary ingredients for global conflict are in place. For now, the four most decisive people in the world — President Obama, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Angela Merkel — have been instrumental in holding it from blowing apart. These four leaders have a pacifist attitude towards areas that are outside the immediate zones of influence of these powers. Particularly President Obama, being mindful of being the greatest power of the time, has acted to defuse the tension on many fronts. Let us hope that these leaders and their respective countries are not forced into circumstances where they let go and drag the world into a mindless full-scale war. In the meantime, the world will be a better place countering academics with little regard for real world realities. The author can be reached on twitter at @aalimalik