The collapse of the Soviet Union fostered the notion of a “unipolar moment,” with the United States emerging as the sole superpower. Yet this unipolarity proved illusory. Power dynamics became increasingly fluid, with non-state actors, technological innovation, and economic interdependence complicating traditional, state-centric models of international relations.
Classical realists such as Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz acknowledged both material and immaterial dimensions of power, including diplomacy, national morale, and the quality of governance. In the post-Cold War context, these elements evolved further. Although military and economic capabilities remain central, intangible factors—such as ideational power, media influence, and consensus-building—have gained considerable prominence.
The ascendancy of transnational corporations, NGOs, and digital platforms has eroded the traditional state monopoly over power. Technology giants like Google and Meta now wield influence comparable to that of nation-states, while innovations such as cryptocurrencies challenge established financial systems.
The Westphalian model of sovereign nation-states, dominant since 1648, is increasingly under strain. Globalization has blurred the distinction between domestic and international politics, as illustrated by issues such as climate change and cybersecurity, which transcend national borders. James Rosenau’s notion of a “post-international world” captures the diminishing state control over cross-border flows of people, capital, and information.
Private military companies (e.g., Wagner Group) and individuals such as Edward Snowden exemplify the rising influence of non-state actors in the security domain. Operating often beyond direct state control, these actors complicate traditional hierarchies of power and security governance.
The global order of the 21st century defies straightforward categorization. While the United States retains military superiority, China’s economic ascendancy and the European Union’s normative influence undermine any claims to sustained unipolarity. Ian Bremmer’s layered model of power—distinguishing military (U.S.-dominated), economic (U.S.-China interdependence), and technological (corporate-driven) spheres—captures the growing complexity of the international system.
Regional powers such as India and Brazil, along with collective entities like OPEC+, further diffuse centralized authority. Contemporary coalitions are increasingly issue-specific and fluid, as exemplified by Turkey’s procurement of both U.S. F-35s and Russian S-400 missile systems.
The world has undergone tremendous change since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. In the ensuing transitional period, cumulative developments have occurred, thus making any return to polarity, in whatever form of unipolar, bi-polar or multi-polar, inconceivable. While the United States will remain the most powerful global military power for the foreseeable future, and while its sum-total of various sources of power will remain greater than any other competitor, it is evident that at great cost to its own taxpayers and to the global community at large, it has failed to establish a hegemonic dominance, nor will it or any other power be able to do so in the foreseeable future.
Moreover, while the sum of economic powers of the United States, China and European Union may probably exceed half of the global sum, the emergence of a multi-polar world will face two distinct challenges from States and non-state actors. Experience has shown that States are no longer prepared to commit allegiance and loyalty to a single power or bloc and tend to engage in issue-based coalitions with seemingly opposite poles. The patterns of interactions resemble networks, with varying nodes, which are not necessarily similar in size or attributes, but defy exclusivity of connections with one or another node.
The second challenge is even more fundamental, questioning the state-centric nature of the global community. The emergence of a new layer of actors, with global significance and reach, which operate outside the control of any State, cannot be neglected. Thus, the post-Westphalian international system may be losing its pivotal characteristic of being international, with states acting as monopolies of power. The last vestige of state monopoly was in the realm of organized use of massive violence in the form of international armed conflict. The non-state actors go beyond traditional culprits, including transnational corporations, global non-governmental organizations, transnational organized criminals, terrorist and extremist groups, and transnational religious and ideological organizations. They now include private military and security corporations (PMSCs), individual experts and small companies in artificial intelligence who can act like weapons of mass destruction in cyber-warfare to more deadly small intelligent weapons powered by artificial intelligence.
States, particularly the major powers and most significantly, the United States, are taking measures to bring the pioneers of this unchartered territory under their sovereign control, certainly not for the sake of humanity or global peace. Yet, the nature of this enterprise evades total sovereign control, thus creating a new layer of global actors with destructive capabilities way beyond many States.
The result of all these factors may contribute to a new global situation, where emergence of a new polar world from the ashes of the cold war and transformative developments of the transitional phase become improbable at least in the foreseeable future. Those used with post-Westphalian balance of power or polar systems may despair, calling the coming world a chaotic system. This is not necessarily so. A post-polar global order may have already emerged, while the world was waiting for the new poles.
These cumulative developments, emanating primarily from the collapse of rigid international order and the fluidity of the transitional phase, have placed human agents in the center of global developments. That gives great power and places huge responsibility on human beings, who can shape the emerging post-polar order, with networks of States, various non-state actors and individuals managing global developments. Chaos is not necessarily the outcome of this mode of interaction.
These unprecedented global developments have immense implications for West Asia, where states and non-state actors have both affected the transformation of the global order to a post polar one, while at the same time being highly vulnerable to these fundamental shifts. Iran and its neighbors in West Asia can be best served by setting aside outdated models of interaction founded in cold war mentality and requirements and form new issue-based coalitions to serve the common welfare of the region and its people. Chinese mediation between Iran and Saudi Arabia can be seen both as a sign of the emerging post polar pattern of fluid loyalties as well as a model for future post polar cooperation between Iran and the Arab world.
The post-Cold War transition has culminated in a post-polar order marked by decentralized power structures, fluid coalitions, and the rising significance of non-state actors. Traditional conceptualizations such as hegemony and bipolarity no longer adequately capture the evolving dynamics of global politics. Instead, power is dispersed across multiple layers and actors, rendering obsolete the notion of a singular, unified “global order.”
This emergent environment necessitates adaptive strategies, recognizing that while states remain vital actors, they no longer monopolize influence. The future will belong to those capable of navigating this fragmented and interconnected landscape—where technology, culture, and economics converge in unpredictable ways.
