The world will not be made unipolar again.
A world long organized around American primacy is quietly but consequentially reorganizing itself. Driven by what many leaders regard as the strategic recklessness of the Iran war and the erosion of international law, nations across the global north and south are constructing new alliances, defence frameworks, and trade corridors that no longer route through Washington. This is not merely a story of one nation's decline, but of a deeper human question: when the guarantor of order becomes a source of disorder, what do the rest of us build in its place?
- The Iran war has functioned as a breaking point — not just militarily, but as a signal to allies worldwide that American judgment can no longer be trusted as the foundation of their security.
- From the British House of Lords to Barcelona's inaugural Global Progressive Mobilisation summit, the backlash is crossing ideological lines, uniting establishment conservatives and progressive leaders in a shared rejection of US unilateralism.
- Europe is moving from rhetoric to architecture — a European Defence Union incorporating Ukraine, Norway, and Britain is gaining institutional momentum, backed by concrete drone and intelligence-sharing agreements already signed.
- Beneath the diplomatic realignment, humanitarian catastrophe deepens: the UN's own humanitarian chief warns the international order has not merely frayed but already collapsed, with genocide, extrajudicial killings, and crimes against humanity now documented across multiple theatres.
- The emerging multipolar coalition remains fragile and contested — populist nationalism still surges in France and Germany, and Washington retains the power to punish those who stray — but the calculus of dependency has fundamentally shifted.
The world is reorganizing itself around a quiet but consequential recognition: American protection is no longer worth the price. This shift has accelerated dramatically in recent months, driven by what many global leaders now see as a catastrophic miscalculation in Iran — a war that Brazil's ambassador to London describes as confirming that the world will not be made unipolar again. In his reading, two poles are now forming: a unilateralist bloc comprising the US, Russia, and Israel, and a growing majority of multilateralists building something new.
The evidence is concrete. Spain's Pedro Sánchez speaks of a multiplication of poles of power and prosperity. Germany's Friedrich Merz has likened Trump's Iran decision to the strategic disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. Canada's Mark Carney has signed more than twenty economic and security deals routing trade away from Washington. In April, Lula, Claudia Sheinbaum, Cyril Ramaphosa, and Mia Mottley gathered in Barcelona for the inaugural Global Progressive Mobilisation summit — a gathering that would have been unthinkable just years ago.
What makes the shift remarkable is that it is not confined to the left. A British House of Lords committee — including former NATO secretary general George Robertson and former Conservative chancellor Norman Lamont — concluded that UK reliance on the US is 'no longer tenable,' warning that American intelligence is being politicised and that force is no longer treated as a last resort. Harvard's Stephen Walt has identified the deeper wound: American influence rests on whether allies believe the US knows what it is doing, and the Trump administration has sent a clear message that it does not.
In response, Europe is building alternatives. A European Defence Union — potentially including Britain, Norway, and Ukraine — is gaining serious traction. Ukraine, with the largest conventional army on the continent and four years of combat experience, has become central to this vision. Germany and Ukraine have already signed drone production and data-sharing agreements, and Gulf states have begun drone cooperation deals with Kyiv after coming under Iranian attack themselves.
Yet beneath the repositioning lies something darker. The UN's humanitarian chief warned last week that the international order has already collapsed — not is collapsing. Amnesty International's 2025 report documented genocide in Gaza, crimes against humanity in Ukraine, and extrajudicial US killings beyond its borders. The director of the European Council on Foreign Relations describes the world as having entered an age of 'unorder' — not merely disorder, but a condition in which the rules themselves are no longer considered relevant.
What comes next remains genuinely uncertain. The unilateralists retain the power to punish and disrupt. But something has shifted in the calculus of global power, and the reverberations of American retreat from Iran may prove as wide as those from Saigon or Kabul.
The world is reorganizing itself around a simple recognition: American protection is no longer worth the price. This shift, still unfolding and far from inevitable, has accelerated dramatically in recent months, driven by what many global leaders now see as a catastrophic miscalculation in Iran—a war that Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, Brazil's ambassador to London, describes as laying bare "a perception that the world will not be made unipolar again."
Patriota's observation cuts to the heart of what is happening across the Western world and beyond. Where once there was a single superpower and a collection of dependent allies, he sees emerging "two poles: a unilateralist superpower on the one hand and a majority of multilateralists on the other." The unilateralists—the US, Russia, and Israel, in his accounting—retain the capacity to inflict damage. But they are increasingly isolated, even within their own borders. The multilateralists, by contrast, are building something new.
This is not a story of American decline told in the abstract. It is visible in concrete moves. Spain's prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, recently declared that the world is experiencing "a multiplication of poles—not only of power, but also of prosperity," with progress germinating simultaneously across China, Africa, and Latin America. Germany's centre-right chancellor, Friedrich Merz, initially cautious about the Iran war, has now likened Trump's decision to launch it to the strategic disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. Canada's Mark Carney is assembling a middle-powers coalition, having already signed more than twenty economic and security deals that route trade away from Washington. Brazil speaks of building "coalitions of the responsible" that coordinate across regions and political systems. In April, leaders including Lula, Mexico's Claudia Sheinbaum, South Africa's Cyril Ramaphosa, and Barbados's Mia Mottley gathered in Barcelona for the inaugural meeting of Global Progressive Mobilisation, a gathering that would have been unthinkable just years ago.
What makes this shift remarkable is that it is not confined to the left. Even the British House of Lords select committee on international relations and defence—a body that faithfully represents the British establishment—has issued a scathing assessment of American reliability. Its members, including the former NATO secretary general George Robertson and the former Conservative chancellor Norman Lamont, concluded that "the current degree of UK reliance is no longer tenable." They called for Britain to stop being "infantilised by the US" and to lead a concentrated move toward greater European leadership in NATO. The committee warned that "US intelligence is being politicised," that "force is no longer a last resort," and that the UK can no longer assume American support in conventional deterrence.
Harvard's Stephen Walt has identified why this matters. American influence, he explains, rests not just on wealth or military power but on whether allies believe the US knows what it is doing. "The Trump administration has sent a message to the rest of the world that that's not the case any more," he said. The Iran war compounded this by signalling that the administration cared about only one country—Israel—at the expense of others. Jane Hartley, the former US ambassador to London, posed the questions that haunt the enterprise: "What was our goal in Iran? What was the legal basis for this war? What was our plan B? What was our exit strategy?" She added, with particular weight: "The public no longer thinks America is a force for good."
In response, Europe is building alternatives. The concept of a European Defence Union, complementary to NATO and potentially including Britain, Norway, and Ukraine, is gaining serious traction in the European Commission. Ukraine itself has become central to this vision. With the largest conventional army in Europe and more than four years of combat experience against Russia, Ukraine possesses both the military capacity and an innovative defence industry capable of rapid weapons development. Germany and Ukraine have already signed agreements on drone production and battlefield data sharing. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE have begun signing drone cooperation deals with Kyiv after coming under Iranian attack.
Yet beneath the diplomatic repositioning lies something darker. Tom Fletcher, head of the UN humanitarian programme, warned last week that "the international order is not on the cusp of collapse, it has already collapsed." Amnesty International's 2025 report documented genocide and crimes against humanity in Gaza, crimes against humanity in Ukraine, extrajudicial killings by the US outside its borders, and attacks on Venezuela and Iran. Mark Leonard, director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, describes the world as having entered an age of "unorder"—not merely disorder, but a state in which the rules themselves are no longer agreed upon or considered relevant. The US, he notes, now regards its domestic strength rather than international institutions or global alliances as the basis of its security.
What comes next remains uncertain. The unipolarists retain the power to punish and disrupt. Trump can still dominate news cycles. The populist right remains ascendant in France and Germany. But something has shifted in the calculus of global power. A new UN secretary general next year may have the chance to challenge the Security Council's outdated structure. In a world where Washington's reliability can no longer be assumed and Beijing's partnership cannot be refused, everything suddenly is negotiable. The reverberations of American retreat in Iran may prove as wide as those from Saigon or Kabul.
Notable Quotes
The Trump administration has sent a message to the rest of the world that it does not know what it is doing, and that means other states are going to be less likely to rely on American advice going forward.— Stephen Walt, Harvard University
The public no longer thinks America is a force for good.— Jane Hartley, former US ambassador to London
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does the Iran war matter so much? It's one conflict among many.
Because it exposed something that had been hidden. For decades, allies accepted American leadership partly because they believed the US had a coherent strategy, that it knew what it was doing. The Iran war revealed the opposite—no clear goal, no legal basis, no exit plan. Once that belief breaks, everything else becomes negotiable.
But couldn't this just be a temporary reaction? Allies have disagreed with America before.
They have. But this time it's different because the disagreement is structural, not tactical. Europe isn't just criticizing a policy; it's building parallel institutions—defence unions, trade corridors, security arrangements that don't require American blessing. That takes years to construct. It signals a fundamental shift in how they see their future.
You mention Brazil and Spain leading this. Why would they have the credibility to reshape global order?
Because they're not asking to replace American hegemony with their own. They're arguing for something genuinely different—multiple poles of power and prosperity, not a new unipolar system. That's appealing to countries that have always felt subordinate. It's also appealing to Europeans who are tired of being treated as dependents.
What about the humanitarian crisis you mention? How does that connect to the geopolitical realignment?
When international law collapses, humanitarians lose their tools. They rely on norms, on the idea that there are rules everyone follows. But if the US ignores those rules, and others follow, then the entire framework for protecting civilians disappears. The realignment is partly a response to that collapse—an attempt to rebuild some kind of order that actually constrains power.
Is there a real chance this actually happens, or is it wishful thinking?
It's already happening. Germany is boosting its military. Ukraine is becoming central to European defence. Trade is being rerouted. These aren't hypothetical moves. But whether it becomes a stable alternative order—that's still open. The unipolarists can still cause enormous damage. The question is whether the cost of that damage finally exceeds the cost of building something new.