The weakening of multilateralism fuels global instability, power politics

Contemporary global instability stems less from the sheer number of crises than from the steady unraveling of the multilateral regimes designed to manage them. As major powers—notably the United States—increasingly operate through parallel, ad‑hoc arrangements outside established international frameworks, rivalry becomes more entrenched, coercion gains ground over rule‑based restraint, and conflicts grow harder to de‑escalate.

The Retreat from Rules‑Based Order

The post‑Cold War ambition to build a rules‑based order relied on international regimes that provided predictability in energy security, non‑proliferation, trade, and collective security. In recent years, however, foreign‑policy practices—most visibly under the Trump administration and sustained thereafter—have systematically weakened the binding force of these regimes. Unilateral withdrawals, bypassing of institutional channels, and preference for bilateral bargaining have not only undermined specific agreements but eroded the normative legitimacy of the regimes themselves. This retreat from multilateralism has facilitated the resurgence of raw power politics, making strategic interaction more transactional, less predictable, and more reliant on coercion.

Parallel Governance and the Iran Case

Rather than seeking to dismantle existing regimes outright, major powers have increasingly created parallel decision‑making channels that render those regimes functionally obsolete. The U.S.–Iran confrontation offers a clear example: Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 disrupted not only Iran’s nuclear program but also the confidence‑building framework at the agreement’s core. What followed was a parallel order based on sanctions, bilateral pressure, and limited coordination—a approach that maximizes short‑term flexibility but cripples the long‑term restorative capacity of international regimes. Iran’s subsequent ambiguity and incremental escalation are, in part, rational adaptations to the loss of predictability in the international system.

Regional Dynamics and Systemic Consequences

The Iran file is embedded in a triangular dynamic that includes Israel’s security perceptions and strategic priorities. Keeping Iran outside institutional frameworks reinforces Israel’s regional posture and preserves U.S. freedom of maneuver, but the cost is borne by the international order itself: the erosion of shared norms and the weakening of regime‑based assurances. As multilateral instruments—monitoring, transparency, coordination, crisis management—are sidelined, uncertainty deepens and power politics fills the void.

Conclusion: Regime Functionality as a Precondition for Stability

International organizations and agreements cannot stabilize the system on their own; they require trust in decision‑making processes, credible implementation, and the assurance that violations will be addressed. When these conditions decay, regimes become hollow shells. The choices of major powers and regional actors in recent years have consistently prioritized unilateral flexibility over collective responsibility, accelerating the shift from common frameworks to parallel arrangements. Consequently, the weakening of multilateralism is not merely a symptom of global instability—it is a central driver. As established rules are bypassed and power politics reasserts itself, predictability fades, competition hardens, and the foundations of a stable international order erode.