The contemporary global order stands at a historic turning point. Changes in U.S. foreign policy under President Donald Trump, evolving alliances such as BRICS, and escalating tensions with Iran challenge the post-Cold War rule-based order. Prominent analysts warn that these shifts may reshape international security, economic cooperation, and strategic balances with profound consequences for global peace and stability.
Under Trump’s leadership, U.S. policy toward NATO and Europe has become increasingly transactional and unpredictable. Historically, NATO has been the cornerstone of Western collective defense since its founding in 1949, anchoring U.S. security commitments to Europe and deterring aggression from powers like the former Soviet Union. Analysts, including those at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, have highlighted growing “collisions” between the United States and Europe over burdensharing, trade, technology, and security cooperation—areas likely to fundamentally alter transatlantic relations if unresolved.
Trump has criticised long-standing U.S. support for European security, pushing allies to sharply increase defense spending and publicly questioning commitments that once seemed inviolable. At the 2025 NATO summit in The Hague, a new defense spending target of 5 % of GDP was agreed—a move Trump framed as correcting “unfair” alliances—but European leaders also voiced concern about U.S. tariffs and shifting priorities.
Moreover, Trump’s approach reflects a broader America First doctrine that prioritises U.S. interests narrowly and questions the value of traditional multilateral security commitments. Some policy discussions in Washington suggest that reduced engagement in Europe could embolden adversaries and weaken the credibility of Article 5—the collective defense clause that underpins NATO deterrence. Surveys and commentary by non-governmental analysts underscore fears that Article 5’s effectiveness diminishes if U.S. commitment is seen as conditional or negotiable.
Stephen Walt, a prominent realist foreign-policy scholar, long argued that NATO’s strength depends on shared strategic interests and cooperation against common threats. A weakening of that cooperation could erode deterrence and create security vacuums in regions where rival powers seek influence.
BRICS and a Shifting World Outlook
Parallel to these strains in traditional alliances, the BRICS grouping—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—along with new partner and aspirant states, is positioning itself as a centre of alternative global governance. Analysts at the Carnegie Endowment argue that BRICS’ potential hinges not only on counterbalancing Western influence but also on offering developing countries a more inclusive voice in global decision-making.
BRICS has expanded negotiations on economic and financial cooperation beyond traditional Western institutions. While its members vary in interests and political systems, the bloc collectively challenges aspects of U.S. dominance in international finance, trade, and diplomatic norms. Some commentary suggests that Trump’s economic policies—such as tariffs and contentious trade negotiations with allies—have inadvertently accelerated interest in alternative frameworks where national currencies and mutual cooperation play a larger role outside the U.S. dollar system.
The growth of BRICS reflects broader trends toward a multipolar world order where power is not concentrated in the United States and its close allies but dispersed among multiple influential states. This does not guarantee confrontation, but it does mean that the traditional rule-based system rooted in Western post-World War II institutions is under stress. How BRICS defines its vision—whether as a purely economic cooperation platform, a geopolitical bloc, or a hybrid entity—will be critical in determining future global governance.
The Rule-Based World Order: Erosion or Transformation?
The post-1945 rule-based order rests on institutions such as the United Nations, international law, free trade regimes, and collective security arrangements like NATO. Experts at the Council on Foreign Relations highlight intellectual debates about the sustainability of this order in the face of rising authoritarian powers, questioning whether traditional legal-institutional frameworks are sufficient to manage intense great-power competition.
Trump’s policies—ranging from unilateral trade measures to diplomatic scepticism about multilateral institutions—have fed concerns that the rule-based order could erode if great powers prioritise unilateral advantage over cooperation. Yet, proponents of multilateralism argue that upholding shared norms remains essential to prevent conflict escalation, manage economic interdependence, and address transnational challenges like climate change and cyber threats.
A world where power balances through negotiation and shared rules could gradually give way to an era where power politics and strategic blocs gain prominence—a shift underscored by German leadership warnings about a return to “great-power politics” and competition based on strength rather than shared principles.
Imminent Conflict: U.S. and Iran?
Tensions between the United States and Iran have intensified, raising fears of broader conflict. While the prospect of a full-scale war remains uncertain, analysts highlight how deep mistrust and conflicting strategic objectives escalate risks. Iran’s nuclear programme and regional influence—backing non-state actors and missile capabilities—have drawn U.S. attention for decades. Survey evidence shows significant variation across regions on whether better relations with Iran would improve security or worsen instability.
The United States views Iran’s potential nuclear capability through the lens of non-proliferation norms and regional stability, while Tehran frames its programme as a deterrent against external threats. Escalation could occur through miscalculation, proxy confrontations, or disputes over strategic choke points. However, both Washington and Tehran have reasons to avoid an all‐out war: such a conflict would risk massive humanitarian loss, destabilise the Middle East, and draw in multiple regional and global powers.
In conclusion, the world sits at a crossroads where traditional alliances like NATO are being tested, and new configurations like BRICS are gaining influence. A stronger multipolar order could evolve, reshaping economic and strategic relations. Yet, this transition carries risks: weakening collective security frameworks may increase instability, and rival blocs could deepen divisions.
The rule-based world order, long anchored by U.S. leadership and allied cooperation, is collapsing, and it is being vigorously challenged. Whether it adapts through inclusive institutions or fractures into competing spheres of influence, only time will tell.
Mohamed Mohamoud Adde is an academic and political analyst