Understanding international relations requires a comprehensive examination of the international system. This system has undergone significant changes, evolving from a landscape dominated by multiple major powers to a bipolar structure during the Cold War, and now operates as a unipolar system centered around the United States.[1] Current academic debates focus on whether this unipolarity will continue or if the world is shifting toward a multipolar system.[2] This paper argues that unipolarity remains intact, as the United States retains unmatched leadership through its superior military capabilities, economic strength, and technological advancements.[3]
The Middle East serves as a critical observation point for studying international system dynamics due to its significant geopolitical and economic importance. The region’s political instabilities, coupled with its strategic value, highlight global power competitions and systemic international issues. This paper examines six principal obstacles the international system faces in the twenty-first century, along with a discussion on polarity and an evaluation of developments in the Middle East.
Main Challenges Facing the International System in the 21st Century
Multiple obstacles currently affect the international system, making it harder to maintain effective global governance and power management. The system faces several new challenges, including the evolution of state and non-state actors, arms and nuclear competition, space militarization, terrorism, and severe consequences of climate change.
State and Multilateral Actors: The Rise of Tech Giants and Influential Personalities
Traditional states have long dominated international relations, but today, multinational corporations and influential individuals wield substantial power. Technology giants like Apple, Meta, and Google shape information flows, public opinion, and political decisions through their digital platforms, steering diplomatic communications and global discourse far beyond national boundaries. These platforms now serve as both diplomatic instruments and contested arenas of geopolitical influence. Social media, for example, has decisively influenced public perceptions during Middle Eastern conflicts—amplifying international awareness while also propagating competing narratives that can intensify religious and political divisions.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX exemplifies the blurring of lines between private enterprise and state interests.[4] Its Starlink satellite-internet service, initially developed for commercial users, has evolved into a strategic resource in conflict zones, providing critical connectivity to civilians and military forces alike.[5] By supplying communications infrastructure in areas of tension, Starlink underscores how private ventures can intersect with space and cyber-capability priorities traditionally reserved for governments. This growing overlap creates fresh security and governance challenges: existing regulatory frameworks struggle to keep pace with rapid technological advances and the geopolitical deployment of privately controlled systems.
Arms Race
Advanced weapons—including hypersonic missiles and missile defense systems—have rekindled an arms race that endures despite decades of attempted disarmament. The United States, China, and Russia lead this competition through substantial investments aimed at enhancing their military capabilities. This intensifying rivalry heightens global tensions, erodes trust in arms-control agreements, and increases the risk that conflicts will spiral out of control. The dissolution of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, along with the lapse or weakening of other accords, has ushered in a dangerous era of strategic instability.[6]
In the 21st century, rapid technological advances further undermine existing arms-control frameworks. The United States, Russia, and China are locked in a heated contest over hypersonic missile technology, which extends response times and poses complex challenges for missile-defense systems.[7] These developments negate much of the progress achieved by decades of international arms-control efforts and raise the likelihood of unintentional escalation.[8]
The collapse of the INF Treaty and the uncertain future of New START exacerbate instability in the international security environment. In the absence of reliable verification mechanisms and mutual trust, states continue to expand their arsenals. The situation grows ever more perilous as additional nations acquire nuclear weapons and the variety and range of delivery systems continue to increase.
Nuclear Proliferation
The use of nuclear weapons remains a fundamental element of strategic deterrence, yet the international security landscape is in flux. According to SIPRI, nine nuclear-armed states continue to expand and modernize their arsenals despite decades of reductions.[9] The United States and Russia hold the vast majority of the world’s warheads, each undertaking major modernization programs that may ultimately increase their stockpiles.[10] Meanwhile, China’s nuclear weapons program is growing at its fastest pace, with researchers projecting annual warhead increases exceeding 100 since 2023.[11] This burgeoning arsenal upends the once-stable deterrent balance and complicates efforts to achieve nonproliferation.[12]
A profound shift is occurring across all nine nuclear-armed states, which are simultaneously sustaining existing forces and pursuing active growth. The US and Russia channel resources into new warhead designs, advanced deployment platforms, and enhanced missile-defense systems. China’s rapid silo construction and MIRV deployment further disrupt established deterrence dynamics.
Nuclear‑armed states within their respective regions.[13] Regional rivals such as India and Pakistan continue to bolster their capabilities amid persistent tensions, while North Korea’s accelerated missile development fuels instability in East Asia. In the Middle East, Israel sustains strategic ambiguity even as it advances its nuclear infrastructure, and Iran’s ongoing pursuit of nuclear weapons—and the US strikes against its facilities following the June 2025 Iran–Israel confrontations—intensify uncertainty, especially since the extent of the damage remains unconfirmed.[14] The global increase in nuclear arsenals thus poses formidable obstacles to nonproliferation initiatives and heightens the risk of regional arms races and armed conflict.
Militarization of Space
Space has emerged as a critical domain for military competition. The United States, China, and Russia devote significant resources to space-based military technologies, encompassing satellite communications, navigation and reconnaissance systems, missile warning capabilities, and potentially offensive space weapons. Initiatives such as the creation of the U.S. Space Force, Project 2025’s recommendation for a Space National Guard, and plans for space-based weapons underscore their strategic intent to transform space into a contested military domain.[15]
Private companies—including SpaceX—provide essential infrastructure support through dual-use satellite constellations that bolster both civilian networks and military operations. [16] The weaponization of space thus generates profound uncertainties about the future boundaries of conflict beyond Earth’s atmosphere and exposes critical space assets to potential attack. This emerging security competition demands advanced international governance frameworks, as existing legal regimes prove insufficient to manage its increasing complexity.
Terrorism International security remains under threat from terrorist activities persisting across different regions. Non-state militant groups exploit weak governance, ongoing regional conflicts, and global connectivity to carry out attacks that destabilize states. The ongoing presence of ISIS and al-Qaida—alongside emerging affiliated organizations—complicates counterterrorism efforts by diversifying operational networks and safe havens.[17]
These extremist groups thrive particularly in the Middle East, where fragile governments and protracted conflicts offer fertile ground for recruiting and expansion. By leveraging local turmoil, they execute operations and steadily increase their territorial control.
Because terrorism transcends national borders, it demands synchronized global responses. Yet geopolitical competition frequently prevents states from uniting around common security objectives, as rivalries and strategic interests undermine collective action against this enduring threat.
Climate Change and Its Geopolitical Implications
The security implications of climate change present an existential threat to humanity. Rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and dwindling resources are set to intensify competition over water, fertile land, and energy assets. [18] Melting polar ice caps and rising sea levels may redraw geopolitical boundaries, impacting coastal nations and strategic maritime routes. Climate change remains fiercely contested in international politics: the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement marked a retreat in global climate leadership, complicating efforts to mitigate environmental risks worldwide. [19]
The scientific community recognizes climate change as a critical security threat because it can exacerbate existing conflicts and spark new ones. In the Middle East, droughts and soaring temperatures have produced severe water shortages, undermined agricultural output, and driven population movements.[20] In Iraq, resource scarcity has triggered massive internal displacements and heightened water-related disputes with neighboring states.[21]
Climate-driven shifts in geography and politics demand coordinated action. The opening of Arctic maritime routes and loss of low-lying territories illustrate how the ocean-level rise will reshape borders and trade corridors. Yet geopolitical rivalries hinder unified responses: the Paris Agreement exit underscored the fragility of international cooperation. Still, the Middle East is increasingly treating climate resilience as a strategic imperative, launching new commitments and green-finance initiatives to bolster regional adaptation.
The Polarity of the International System
The international system has undergone distinct phases of polarity. In the 19th century’s multipolar era, multiple great powers vied for influence. The Cold War then established bipolarity through the struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union. After the Soviet collapse, unipolarity prevailed, with the United States emerging as the sole superpower.[22] Since 2008, scholars have debated whether unipolarity is waning and multipolarity ascending. [23] Proponents of a multipolar order point to the growing influence of China, India, and Russia—demonstrated by initiatives such as China’s Belt and Road, BRICS partnerships, and Russia’s military modernization—as evidence of a shifting global balance. Regional coalitions and organizations likewise signal efforts to counter U.S. leadership. Nonetheless, the United States retains unmatched military strength, technological innovation, and economic leverage. Its “America First” policies reinforced this dominance by prioritizing core interests and eschewing agreements deemed to undermine its authority. Thus, despite emerging multipolar tendencies, today’s system continues to operate under unipolar preeminence.
The Middle East and the Reasons for Its Importance
The Middle East derives its significance from a blend of historical, religious, economic, and geopolitical factors that underpin global stability. Cradling the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Phoenicia, the region also gave rise to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—faiths followed by some four billion people worldwide. Its cultural distinctiveness is reinforced by spiritual pilgrimage routes connecting Jerusalem and Mecca, as well as ongoing theological discourse.
Strategically, the Middle East commands vast energy resources and crucial trade corridors. As of 2025, the Gulf Cooperation Council states hold 48 percent of global oil reserves and 38 percent of natural gas reserves, cementing their pivotal role in worldwide energy security.[24] Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping lanes have exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains, prompting investment in overland alternatives across the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq.[25] Since 2023, the GCC has led sustainability bond issuance, raising $36 billion to finance renewable-energy and economic-diversification projects.
Two key waterways reinforce the region’s geostrategic weight: the Suez Canal, which handles 12 percent of world trade, and the Strait of Hormuz, through which 21 percent of global petroleum transits. [26] These essential sea routes draw persistent interest from the United States and European powers, even as China expands its Belt and Road investments. The collapse of Syria’s Assad regime in 2024 intensified competition among outside actors vying for influence in the ensuing power vacuum.[27] Today, U.S. policy in the region remains focused on curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and safeguarding Israel, underscoring the Middle East’s role as a proving ground for global power dynamics.
Approaches to Understanding the Middle East
Two principal scholarly frameworks guide the study of the Middle East, though contemporary research often blends elements of both. The external-behavior school, grounded in international relations theory, analyzes how regional powers interact with or counter global actors. This approach can be illustrated by examining Middle Eastern states’ alignments and rivalries during World War I and World War II, both among themselves and with major powers.
In contrast, the internal-dynamics school attributes regional instability to domestic sociopolitical factors: governance failures, religious tensions, and economic disparities. The renewed Syrian civil war of 2024, for example, highlights how Alawite-minority rule provoked Sunni insurgencies, while Lebanon’s institutionalized sectarian power-sharing has produced chronic political paralysis. [28] Likewise, Iran’s youth unemployment—exceeding 25 percent among those under age 25—creates fertile ground for social unrest.
Although the choice of framework depends on the specific research question, a combined approach generally offers the most holistic insight into Middle Eastern dynamics.
Correlation Between International System Changes and Shifts in the Middle East
The United States has acted as the dominant power shaping regional alliances, conflicts, and diplomatic initiatives—deploying strategies to counter Iran’s nuclear ambitions and backing Israel’s positions, thereby altering regional power dynamics. Middle Eastern states, in turn, respond to global challenges such as terrorism and arms races by adopting either assertive or defensive postures and by forging alliances with external powers to safeguard their national interests.
The ongoing Gaza conflict, which erupted in 2023, exemplifies this interplay. U.S. diplomatic and military support for Israel has enabled prolonged operations that have destabilized neighboring Lebanon and Yemen, particularly through U.S.’s vetoes of UN cease-fire resolutions. Meanwhile, Houthi strikes on Red Sea shipping routes disrupted 30 percent of Asia–Europe trade, demonstrating how regional conflicts can trigger global economic disturbances.[29] Together, America’s unipolar control and the Middle East’s instability underscore the region’s role as a barometer of the international order.
Future of the Middle East Within the Current International System
The current international system will determine the Middle East’s trajectory in the coming years. U.S. foreign policy under Trumpism—marked by pragmatic unilateralism and selective engagement—will continue to shape the region’s development. The Trump administration’s diplomatic support lent international validation to extremist regional forces, enabling them to consolidate power,[30] while targeted airstrikes on Houthi positions in Yemen and Iranian nuclear sites worked to prevent radical shifts that might jeopardize U.S. interests. By favoring tactical interventions over sweeping political reforms, the U.S. administration sought to preserve a controlled stability within the existing order.
OPEC+ production cuts will persist through 2025, even as non-oil sectors drive the region’s economic diversification. The UAE has committed $30 billion to its tech fund, and Saudi Arabia is advancing NEOM as its first major step away from oil dependence. Gulf states have embraced climate resilience as a strategic imperative: expanded LNG exports from the North Field and UAE solar initiatives position them as future green-energy exporters. By leveraging U.S.–China competition, the GCC acquires advanced technologies while sidestepping trade penalties, aiming for 3.5 percent GDP growth in 2025 despite global economic headwinds.
Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear ambitions and Turkey’s neo-Ottoman aspirations challenge U.S. dominance, yet no cohesive opposition bloc has emerged. The so-called “Axis of Resistance” remains fragmented—Hezbollah has suffered damage from Israeli strikes, Hamas remains isolated in Gaza, and BRICS expansion faces economic vision constraints. Despite reputational setbacks after the Gaza conflict, the United States maintains influence through initiatives such as the International Maritime Security Construct. Going forward, Washington must balance military deterrence with diplomatic engagement to curb nuclear proliferation and prevent major-power confrontations.
Conclusion
The twenty-first-century international system faces ongoing challenges that severely test global governance and power structures. Dynamics involving state and non-state actors, modern weapons competition, space-defense initiatives, terrorism, and climate-change patterns combine to define today’s strategic environment. Despite growing multipolar tendencies, the United States retains its status as the preeminent global power. The Middle East stands out as a strategic battleground where these systemic dynamics play out most visibly, owing to its vital religious, economic, and geopolitical importance.
The region’s future depends on how global powers manage existing threats while safeguarding established arrangements. Ultimately, the ability of states to adapt their interests and security measures will determine the stability of both the Middle East and the broader international order.
[1] William C. Wohlforth, “The Stability of a Unipolar World,” International Security 24, no. 1 (Summer 1999): 5–41.
[2] Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth, “The Once and Future Superpower: Why China Won’t Overtake the United States,” Foreign Affairs 89, no. 1 (2010): 23–37.
[3] Sarah Brooks and Derek Chollet, eds., The Unraveling: High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in America’s Post–Cold War Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016).
[4] Paul Mozur, “How Facebook and Twitter Became the New Front Lines in Egypt,” The New York Times, February 2, 2011.
[5] Siobhan Gorman, “SpaceX’s Starlink Has Become Vital to Ukraine’s War Effort and Has Caught the Eye of U.S. Military,” The Wall Street Journal, August 1, 2022.
[6] Robert Osborne, “Collapse of INF Treaty Spurs New Arms Competition,” The Washington Post, August 3, 2019.
[7] David Wright and Cameron Tracy, “Hypersonic Weapons—Part 1: Background and Vulnerability to Missile Defenses,” arXiv, April 2023.
[8] Michael O’Hanlon, “The Limits of American Military Power,” Foreign Affairs 99, no. 4 (July/August 2020): 10–24.
[9] Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Yearbook 2024: World Nuclear Forces, chap. 7.
[10] SIPRI, Yearbook 2024.
[11] Reuters, “World Entering New Era as Nuclear Powers Build Up Arsenals, SIPRI Think Tank Says,” June 15, 2025.
[12] Washington Post editorial board, “What’s Making Some Countries Daydream about Nukes Again?” The Washington Post, June 25, 2025.
[13] Reuters, June 15, 2025.
[14] Washington Post, June 24, 2025.
[15] Brookings Institution, “Project 2025 and the Space National Guard,” February 2025.
[16] Space News, “U.S. Military’s Growing Reliance on Commercial Space Capabilities,” May 12, 2024.
[17] Michael O’Hanlon, “All the Missing Adopted Languages of al Qaida,” The National Interest, March 2023.
[18] Michael T. Klare, “Climate Change and Conflict,” Foreign Policy, September 2023.
[19] Foreign Affairs coverage on the Trump-era U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement (2017–2019).
[20] United Nations Environment Programme, Water Scarcity in the Middle East (2022).
[21] Susan Kelly, “Iraq Drought Sparks Water Dispute with Neighbors,” The Washington Post, October 10, 2024.
[22] G. John Ikenberry, “The End of the Liberal International Order?” International Affairs 94, no. 1 (2018): 7–23.
[23] Gideon Rachman, “A Return to History,” The Economist, March 2020.
[24] U.S. Energy Information Administration, “GCC Petroleum Reserves,” March 2025.
[25] Reuters, “Houthi Attacks Disrupt Red Sea Shipping, Prompt Rerouting,” March 2024.
[26] S&P Global, “Strait of Hormuz Handles 20% of World Oil Flow,” December 2023.
[27] International Crisis Group, “The Collapse of the Assad Regime and Its Aftermath,” July 2024.
[28] International Crisis Group, “Lebanon: Democracy Blocked,” December 2023.
[29] Reuters, “Houthi Rebels Disrupt Asia–Europe Shipping by 30 Percent,” March 2024.
[30] Foreign Policy, “Trump’s Embrace of Extremist Regional Forces,” June 2024.
