The Transformation of the International System: From Bipolarity to Emerging Multipolarity
International relations have never been static; rather, they have evolved in response to shifting conditions and the outcomes generated by global dynamics. As commonly recognized in political science, “the only constant in politics is change.” This reflects what is known as historical process or historical determinism. Over decades, political and social transformations within the international system have produced a constantly evolving global order shaped by ongoing political conditions and continuous international interaction. This study examines the formation of the international system and the transformations it has undergone through several key axes:
Strategic Axis:
There is an organic, biological analogy between the territory of a state and the body of a living organism, as proposed by thinkers such as Haushofer, Ratzel, and Kjellén. According to this perspective, a state’s territory must grow just as a living organism grows; a state that does not expand is considered a “sick” state. Growth, in this context, occurs through territorial expansion at the expense of smaller states—effectively overpowering and absorbing them. Kjellén went even further, suggesting that a state’s territory corresponds to a living body: the capital represents the heart, rivers act as arteries, and individuals represent the cells.
In the same vein, Ratzel argued that international conflict is essentially a struggle between political units, ultimately leading to the survival of the strongest. He also emphasized that expansion by major powers requires a strong economy, advanced military capabilities, and a significant demographic base. Smaller states, by contrast, are destined to orbit larger powers or risk being forcibly absorbed. Eventually, major powers themselves enter into conflict, with one emerging victorious as the dominant global power.
Historically, international relations differed from what we observe in the modern international system. Strategic theories once framed global conflict as a struggle between land and sea powers. The landmass—comprising Asia, Africa, and Europe—was referred to as the “World Island.” According to Halford Mackinder, whoever controls the “Heartland” controls the World Island, and whoever controls the World Island controls the world. Today, however, the “heart of the world” is often seen as the Middle East. Control over this region implies control over global power due to its geopolitical and strategic importance, as well as its vast energy resources (oil and gas), which account for roughly 30% of global energy production.
Mackinder was not merely a theorist; he believed that geographers should personally explore and verify the realities of the Earth’s geography.
Axis Two: The End of World War II and Bipolarity (U.S.–Soviet):
Following the Allied victory in 1945, the United Nations was established by five major powers: the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and France. These nations became permanent members of the Security Council, alongside ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms. The Security Council functioned as the executive body of the UN. Procedural decisions required agreement among members, each holding veto power. Substantive decisions (under Chapter VII) required the approval of all permanent members without the use of the veto.
During the Cold War, Chapter VII decisions were largely blocked due to the extensive use of the veto by the Soviet Union, the primary rival of the United States. However, after the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, such decisions were increasingly passed, reflecting the absence of Soviet opposition. At the time, the United States accounted for roughly 30% of the global economy and contributed a similar proportion to the UN budget—making it the primary financial and political influencer within the organization.
Axis Three: The End of the Cold War and the Rise of Unipolarity:
The international system shifted from bipolarity to unipolarity, with the United States emerging as the dominant global power. Rising states, including Russia, recognized the difficulty of confronting U.S. dominance individually. As a result, they formed alliances and organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, along with several Central Asian republics).
Following the 2008 global financial crisis, these countries called for reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar in international transactions, advocating instead for a basket of global currencies, including the Chinese yuan.
BRICS, as a global economic bloc, was first conceptualized in September 2006 during a meeting of foreign ministers from Brazil, Russia, India, and China on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.
Axis Four: U.S.–China Economic Competition in the International System:
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was the main competitor to the United States. The U.S. ultimately weakened the Soviet Union by drawing it into an arms race during the 1980s—one the Soviet economy could not sustain. This led to its eventual collapse and the independence of its republics in the late 20th century, allowing the U.S. to dominate the global system.
However, China emerged as a new challenger. Its transformation from an agrarian to an industrial economy beginning in 1978 enabled rapid economic growth. Within a few decades, China became the world’s second-largest economic power. By 2013, its GDP reached approximately $5 trillion with a growth rate of 9%, compared to $13 trillion and 4% growth for the United States. By 2025, China’s GDP rose to around $18 trillion with 12% growth, while the U.S. reached $23 trillion with 7% growth—narrowing the economic gap significantly.
China’s rise is supported by major economic initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative and strategic investments in ports like Gwadar in Pakistan (operational since 2013), as well as reliance on Iranian energy exports—China imports around 40% of Iran’s external oil exports. These developments have challenged U.S. global influence.
In response, the United States has sought to design geopolitical strategies to counter China’s economic expansion, particularly in the Middle East. One such strategy involves reshaping the region under a “New Middle East” framework, which hinges on controlling Iran—viewed as a key strategic obstacle and central geopolitical pivot.
Axis Five: The U.S.–Israeli–Iranian Conflict:
Two main perspectives exist regarding the ongoing conflict involving the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other. The conflict between Israel and Iran is often described as a “zero-sum war,” where each seeks the complete elimination of the other, rooted in their respective ideological and religious narratives. Meanwhile, the U.S.–Iran conflict is seen as primarily economic, aimed at undermining China’s regional influence.
U.S. and Israeli interests have converged in this confrontation. Israeli strategic narratives emphasize territorial expansion “from the sea to the river,” necessitating the neutralization of Iran, which is viewed as the principal obstacle. Conversely, Iran perceives itself as a state with a religious mission to prepare the ground for the return of the Hidden Imam and establish justice—thus requiring resistance against Israel, which it considers an illegitimate entity.
Conclusion:
Based on the above, the current conflict is unlikely to remain confined to Iran alone; it may expand to engulf the broader region in pursuit of Israeli strategic objectives and the U.S.-backed vision of a “New Middle East,” a concept that has existed since the early 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis and the idea of a U.S.-led global order.
However, recent studies suggest that the United States is no longer the sole dominant force in the international system. Its relative global influence—especially economically—has declined. With China’s continued rise and the growing coordination among emerging powers through regional and international organizations, the international system appears to be shifting toward multipolarity. In this emerging order, the United States remains a major power, but no longer the sole hegemon.
