OPINION - The return of power politics: Why rules-based orders are fading?

• The weakening of multilateralism should therefore be understood as a central driver of global instability, not a secondary consequence. As established frameworks are sidelined and power fills the resulting gaps, predictability fades and competition hardens
• The author is a political scientist with a Ph.D. in Political Science and International Relations at the University of Vienna.
  

ISTANBUL

The root of today’s global instability lies not in the sheer number or pace of crises, but in the steady unraveling of the multilateral regimes meant to govern them. As major powers increasingly operate through parallel structures, particularly in the Middle East, regional rivalries have become more rigid, more enduring, and more difficult to de-escalate. The United States’ growing reliance on ad hoc arrangements outside established multilateral frameworks has been especially consequential, reinforcing dynamics that privilege coercion and uncertainty over predictability and rule-based restraint.

Conflicts in the Middle East, tensions over energy corridors, the re-securitization of nuclear issues, and the intensification of great power rivalry all point to a deeper structural transformation. At its core lies the erosion of multilateralism and the declining effectiveness of international regimes.

Many of today’s global challenges are therefore better understood not as the outcome of isolated policy choices by individual states, but as the result of the gradual disintegration of the normative and institutional architecture underpinning the international order.

Power politics gain strength as rules-based order weakens

In the post–Cold War era, international politics was largely shaped by the ambition to construct a rules-based order. International regimes in areas such as energy security, nuclear non-proliferation, trade, and collective security were designed to generate predictability through shared principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures.

In recent years, however, foreign policy practices; most visibly those led by the US have increasingly undermined the binding force of these regimes. The unilateralist turn that gained momentum during the Trump administration, characterized by the questioning of multilateral agreements, the bypassing of institutional mechanisms, and the prioritization of bilateral bargaining, marked a decisive shift. This retreat from rules has facilitated the return of power politics. As regimes lose credibility and enforcement capacity, strategic interaction becomes more transactional, less predictable, and more heavily reliant on coercive instruments. The weakening of multilateralism thus does not simply coexist with power politics; it actively enables its resurgence.

The United States and parallel structures: Retreat from multilateralism or search for a new order?

The United States’ distancing from multilateralism cannot be reduced to a desire to avoid institutional constraints.Washington has increasingly pursued policies through parallel decision-making and implementation channels that effectively bypass existing regimes.

In response, alternative arrangements have emerged: narrow coercive tools replacing broad-based nuclear oversight, bilateral trade deals supplanting multilateral trade regimes, and temporary security coalitions substituting for collective decision-making mechanisms.

Crucially, these parallel structures do not seek to dismantle existing regimes outright. Instead, they render them functionally obsolete. Regimes remain formally intact, but substantive decisions are increasingly made elsewhere. The result is an international order in which institutions persist on paper while power is exercised through informal, selective, and often opaque channels.

The Iran case: Where parallel governance politics crystallize

The US–Iran confrontation represents one of the clearest cases in which parallel governance politics have effectively sidelined multilateral regimes. The United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 not only disrupted Iran’s nuclear program but also undermined the shared expectations and trust framework upon which the agreement was built. What followed was not the establishment of a new multilateral regime, but rather a parallel implementation order based on sanctions, bilateral pressure mechanisms, and limited coordination.

The JCPOA was not merely a technical non-proliferation arrangement; it was a confidence-building structure embedded in a broader regime logic. Its abandonment signaled that even highly institutionalized agreements could be reversed unilaterally, thereby reducing incentives for compliance and cooperation.

Iran’s responses should therefore not be interpreted solely through the lens of immediate security concerns.

The US–Iran–Israel triangle: Strategic convergence and regime erosion

The Iran case cannot be reduced to a bilateral dispute between Washington and Tehran.From Israel’s perspective, Iran represents not merely a state approaching nuclear capability, but a structural challenger capable of altering regional power balances.

Israel’s security doctrine has long prioritized the preservation of regional military and strategic superiority and the prevention of rival actors from acquiring capabilities that could offset this advantage. The United States’ shift away from multilateral approaches toward Iran aligns closely with this security perspective. While a multilateral nuclear regime offers oversight and constraint, it also carries the risk of legitimizing Iran as a normalized actor within the international system. Parallel instruments based on pressure, deterrence, and strategic uncertainty are thus often perceived as preferable.

For Washington, this alignment delivers short-term strategic coherence. Keeping Iran outside the system both reinforces Israel’s regional position and preserves US freedom of maneuver. The cost, however, is borne by the international order itself: the erosion of regimes and the weakening of shared normative foundations.

Iran’s counter- strategies, enhancing nuclear ambiguity, strengthening regional partnerships, and leveraging energy assets more visibly, are direct consequences of this environment. They reflect adaptation to a system in which regime-based predictability has given way to strategic uncertainty.

The precondition for stability: Regime functionality

Global stability is often associated with the mere existence of international regimes. Experience suggests otherwise. Stability emerges not from regimes’ formal presence, but from the effective functioning of their constituent elements. Regimes derive meaning from the institutions that support them, the agreements that bind actors, and the collective willingness to act within shared constraints.

Leadership plays a decisive role in this process. Effective leadership prioritizes long-term predictability over short-term advantage and treats rules as instruments of stability rather than obstacles to power. International organizations and agreements serve as the structural carriers of regimes, yet they cannot generate stability on their own. Their effectiveness depends on trust in decision-making processes, the credibility of implementation, and the certainty that violations will not go unanswered. When these conditions erode, regimes may persist formally while losing their capacity to manage crises and power politics inevitably reasserts itself.

Conclusion

Stability cannot be built on norms or rules alone, nor can it be sustained through power exercised in isolation. It emerges when multilateral frameworks function, institutions retain credibility, leadership acts with restraint, and agreed mechanisms are applied consistently. In recent years, the choices made by major powers and regional actors alike have reinforced this erosion. As states increasingly prioritize unilateral flexibility over collective responsibility, parallel arrangements replace common frameworks and short term calculations overshadow long term stability. It shapes how countries respond to security threats, energy competition, and strategic rivalry across the system.

The effective functioning of regimes depends on the ability of relevant actors to come together around shared principles with strong political will, to develop rules that translate these principles into patterns of behavior, and to apply sound and credible decision making processes. It also requires all relevant actors to engage in the process with sustained commitment.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu.