The international order does not undergo major shifts when there is an equilibrium. Usually, they unfold when things are in flux and there is a vacuum to fill, as the previous rules erode with no alternatives emerging to replace them and when hegemons lose either the will or ability to oversee this order.
We are not merely faced with a US foreign policy crisis, and Washington’s deviation from its behavior is not a fleeting moment. We are in the midst of a structural transition; the model that has governed the world since the end of World War II is withering, and no fully formed alternative has emerged to replace it. Neither decisive confrontation nor stability can prevail in a vacuum, only an overwhelming gray zone that leads states to manage risk, buy time, and cut contain setbacks, making confusion conducive to change rather than an obstacle to it.
In this context, US President Donald Trump’s second term reveals more than it builds. The foreign policy that Trump has adopted did not merely undermine traditional tools of American leadership; it also stripped away a moral and strategic assumption that had held for decades: the interests of the US are served by a global order founded on alliances, institutions, and rules.
This assumption no longer exists in Washington, neither Trump nor among a broad segment of the American elite and public believes this. Worn down by failed interventions and fiscal constraints, a growing number of Americans believe that the burdens of global leadership are no longer worth the effort. Trump here is not exceptional; he is a blunt reflection of a deeper shift in the national mood.
The United States’ abandonment of its traditional role was not met by a substantial response from its allies. Rather, they proceeded cautiously and adapted quietly. States that had built their security and prosperity for decades under the US umbrella suddenly found themselves struggling to find an alternative. Accordingly, they avoided explicit confrontation and opted for accommodation, seeking to buy time and hoping that this a phase after which Washington will eventually go back to playing its traditional role.
This bet may reflect wishful thinking. Even after Trump leaves the White House, the factors that had facilitated his return and the rise of his isolationist discourse will not disappear overnight.
We are in a region that is turning into an international vacuum. When the hegemon retreats without disappearing, an alternative system does not immediately emerge. Instead, a series of adjustments follow in succession, reshaping international relations from the periphery rather than the center. In my view, globalization has not ended but has excited “Washington’s brackets.” Regional blocs are deepening, trade agreements are broadening, and economic integration continues, albeit without an overarching political umbrella.
Washington’s retreat has exposed the fragility of Europe’s collective security project, which had been built on the assumption of permanent American support. Despite significant increases in defense spending, the continent lacks autonomous deterrence and would continue to struggle in the face of major crises without the United States in the near future.
Asia, for its part, has chosen a more pragmatic path. Instead of sharply aligning with either Washington or Beijing, Asian states have combined economic cooperation with China and hedged against it to defend their security as they navigate fluctuating relations with the United States. This behavior does not reflect indecisiveness or hesitation but a solid grasp of the current phase, in which no single umbrella is sufficient and no single rivalry is decisive.
The most dangerous repercussions of this shift are unfolding in the Middle East, where US retrenchment fuses with structural fragility and chronic conflict. The absence of an external guarantor does not automatically open the door to strategic independence. Instead, it could trigger a regional power struggle and tempt destabilizing forces, chief among them Israel and those seeking to emulate its experience, to fill the vacuum through violence or chaos, seizing the initiative and exploiting the decline of Iran’s axis and its proxies.
In this context, the Middle East does not have the luxury of waiting, nor can it simply bet on the US returning. The central challenge is building a regional balance that reduces the cost of this vacuum and averts total chaos. Doing so requires regional leadership capable of combining deterrence and stability, development and security, political realism and resistance to subversive projects. In this regard, Saudi Arabia stands out, not because it is pursuing the ambitions of a traditional power but as the spearhead of an effort to ensure durable stability, redefine the role of the state, and change calculations in a turbulent regional order.
In recent years, Riyadh has presented an alternative model for addressing global shifts. Rather than relying on the umbrellas of foreign powers or going on expansionist adventures, it has focused on domestic development, the diversification of its economy, and the consolidation of regional stability through a mix of diplomatic, economic, and security power. Its vision is not premised on the assumption that the vacuum can be filled by hard power alone.
The Kingdom understands that there is also a need for containing chaos through development, economic integration, and the rejection of the logic of militias and transnational projects. This approach has led neighbors in the region to see Saudi Arabia as a legitimate partner that does not prioritize short-term considerations, leaving it in pole position to lead an Arab and Islamic front standing against chaos. In short, Saudi Arabia today is a symbol of stability in the Middle East.
