One of the most significant changes in world politics since the end of the Cold War is currently taking place. International politics for much of the 20th century was dominated by rigid and lasting alliances – one lead by the West including the United States and the other by the Soviet bloc. Such relationships were formed on the basis of different conceptions of friend and enemy were durable and were of a philosophical nature.
Modern times, however present a completely different scene. Global partnerships are not reliable and enduring. Instead, they are developing adaptability, problem solving and often transient. Rival powers are increasingly working with a number of rival powers depending on the national interests.
Conventional alliances were long-term militaristic and security alliances between countries. The most notable is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), whose members agree that an attack on one is an attack on all. In a similar fashion, at the time of the Cold War, there was a division between two blocs: the Soviet bloc and the Western bloc. These relations had a profound impact on global politics and security.
These collaborations were built on three pillars. First, there was a strong sense of togetherness among member states due to the unambiguous identification of foes. During the Cold War, for example, NATO countries increased their collective defence measures and military integration in response to the threat from the USSR. Secondly, ideology played an important role as the political identity was globalised through the influence of capitalism and communism. The split of Germany into West Germany and East Germany, for instance, was a reflection of the larger ideological struggle between the communist East and the capitalist West. Thirdly, countries rarely switched allegiances and remained within their own blocs because alliances were long-term. Türkiye is an example. Even with the domestic political changes in Türkiye and the international and geopolitical challenges that faced the country, Türkiye continued to be a loyal NATO member throughout the Cold War period. Alliances were a major determinant of a state’s foreign policy; international relations had rigid paths of cooperation and conflict in this relatively predictable, bipolar world.
Today’s international system is far more complex than it was before. This is bolstered by economic interdependence, including rival countries such as the U.S. and China, who are closely intertwined in trade, technology and supply chains, making conflict more costly.
It is also manifested in the real-world matters including Iran-Israel conflict. In recent escalation, Iran had pointed out that a strike on southern Beirut was a ‘red line’ but Israel had persisted in its operations in the region, demonstrating the ways in which regional conflicts affect great-power responses and alignments. Meanwhile, the U.S. continued to support Israel but urged them to exercise caution and de-escalation in their diplomacy, thus balancing support with strategic prudence.
Multi-alignment of states occurring on different issues in today’s international system is an important aspect. For instance, India is trying to maintain a delicate equilibrium in strategic relations with the U.S., defence cooperation with Russia, and economic cooperation with Europe and China. This enables countries to decrease reliance and adopt flexible and interest led foreign policy.
A key question today is whether traditional alliances are under threat in the changing international system:
Basically, alliances have become more complex and politically charged than they have been wiped out. Traditional alliances are not dying but are more strained. NATO is still strong, however, there are still a number of disagreements with regard to defence spending, strategy and the extent of U.S. reliance. The Ukraine war has been a catalyst for short-term unity but long-term issues about expansion and European autonomy have yet to be resolved.
Now let’s discuss real world examples of changing alliances. Türkiye is trying to maintain a balance between the NATO and Russia and China. Saudi Arabia is moving forward with ties to China and Russia. In addition to the U.S., India has strategic relations with the U.S. and is still in a process of defence cooperation with Russia. The UAE is a mix of America’s security alliance and an emerging economic relationship with China.
Furthermore, the recent media leak of an alleged tense and confrontational phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and the Israeli leadership further illustrates the challenges of ‘strong alliances,’ in particular when it comes to the Iran-Israel war dynamics as Trump reportedly voiced significant frustration about some Israeli moves. He even gave strong warnings as is reported and discussed widely in the media in the past few days and is indicative of the strong irritation in the exchange. Some analysts see this episode as proof that even the U.S.-Israel relationship, which was once considered to be a strong one, is not devoid of conflict, pressure, and interest differences. In general, such incidents emphasise the notion that modern international relations are being influenced more by the shifting and pragmatic nature of diplomacy than by any sense of permanent fidelity.
There are a number of challenges on implementation of the new system. Flexible alignment means that there is more room for state discretion and for less predictability in global politics. Countries can’t rely on partner’s commitments in the long-term. Second, if they cooperate only for a short period, it could be misinterpreted and result in misunderstandings in diplomacy. Third, in the absence of blocks, it is harder to coordinate collective action during crises.
In the 2026 scenario, this uncertainty about the Iran conflict is starkly apparent. Many of the Gulf States during the crisis decried Iranian aggression on their territory and infrastructure, but they did not get directly involved in the wider conflict. Saudi Arabia, for instance, reacted strongly to Iran’s actions and it is trying to coordinate with its other Gulf counterparts on the issue and continue the diplomatic dialogue with Tehran to prevent further escalation in order to ensure security in the region. This revealed the shift towards more flexible policies on the interests instead of bloc politics. This made it impossible to anticipate the responses of countries and to be sure they would be able to fully back traditional partners when the crisis hit.
Overall, global campaigns are not coming to an end, they are changing. Flexible, interest-based partnerships with new alliances which change as circumstances change are replacing Cold War blocs. Instead of fixed alliances in a multipolar world, states are increasingly placing their strategic autonomy and cooperation based on interest and issues above all else. The landscape of international politics has thus become more fluid, and partner-building is ongoing. Lift the blocs, replace them with flexible networks.
The writer is a student of International Relations at Jahangirnagar University, Dhaka
