By Fulvio Attina
Why do regime-change wars re-emerge when the world order is under stress? As multilateral institutions lose effectiveness and legitimacy, Fulvio Attina The argument suggests that states are increasingly leaning towards unilateral or coalition-based power. Interventions such as those in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, and Iran are not isolated crises, but rather reflect a deeper process of coalition restructuring during a period of systemic change.
The alleged efforts of the United States and Israel to force regime change in Iran raise a broader question: Why do such interventions seem to re-emerge precisely when the international order is under strain?
This is no coincidence. There is a historical pattern of linking periods of change in global order with the use of military force to reshape political regimes.
War and World Order Creation
The world system has undergone major changes in the last five centuries A large-scale war. From the early modern European conflicts to the two world wars, each transition produced a new order led by a dominant power: the Netherlands, then Britain, and finally the United States.
The postwar world order worked as long as it provided benefits. Today, that status is weakening – and legitimacy is declining as performance declines
(After 1945However, something changes. The United States and its allies did not rely on power alone. They created a system of international institutions to manage global issues: the IMF for finance, the GATT/WTO for trade, and the UN Security Council for security. It was an attempt to manage interdependence through rules rather than repeated systematic warfare.
Yet the system was never fully egalitarian. Decision-making power was unevenly distributed. Some states, especially major powers, held privileged positions, while others had limited influence. The system worked as long as it provided benefits. Today that situation is weakening.
A system that loses effectiveness and legitimacy
Global institutions are no longer functioning as effectively as they used to. Financial governance has struggled with recurring crises. Trade cooperation has stalled. The UN Security Council is often crippled by vetoes.
As performance decreases, so does validity. States are less willing to rely on multilateral solutions and more inclined to work on their own or within limited coalitions. At the same time, the old Western alliance is less cohesive, while no clear alternative alliance has fully emerged.
This creates a condition of systemic uncertainty: the old order is no longer fully viable, but a new one has not yet taken shape.
Why regime-change interventions matter
In this context, military intervention aimed at regime change takes on a new meaning.
During the Cold War, such interventions were largely confined to spheres of influence and often protected by veto power in the UN Security Council. Today, they are more openly associated with broader strategic competition.
Today, military interventions aimed at regime change are more openly linked to greater strategic competition.
Recent examples, from Iraq and Libya to Ukraine and now Iran, suggest that major powers are willing to use force not only to protect interests, but also to reshape political outcomes in other states.
These interventions often bypass or extend international legal norms. The UN Charter formally limits intervention in internal affairs, allowing the use of force only with the authorization of the Security Council. In practice, this rule is often violated when large forces are involved.
A deep process: Alliance reconstruction
What explains this pattern?
One answer lies in the restructuring of international alliances. As the existing order weakens, states reposition themselves by seeking new alignments and advantages. Military intervention becomes a tool through which this repositioning takes place.
This idea echoes a long-standing theory of international relations: major systemic changes precede changes in alliance structure. Today, we may be witnessing such a shift – but in terms of much deeper global interdependence.
Rethinking Sovereignty in an Interdependent World
This brings us to a fundamental topic: sovereignty.
Traditionally, sovereignty implies that states can independently provide security and welfare. It was always a normative assumption. In today’s world, this is clearly unrealistic. States depend on each other for economic stability, security, and even domestic governance.
States are more independent than ever, but less effectively governed at the global level
Yet the institutions designed to manage this interdependence are weakening. The result is a paradox: states are more interdependent than ever, but govern less effectively at the global level.
What kind of order comes next?
The risk is that the transition to a new world order will be less through negotiated reform and more through conflict. If so, regime-change wars may become a recurring feature of world politics rather than the exception.
An alternative path requires reforming international organizations to make them more representative and effective. This means addressing the inconsistencies in decision-making that have long undermined their legitimacy.
For now, however, the direction of change remains uncertain.
What is clear is that interventions involving Iran are not isolated incidents. They are part of a larger transformation – in which the collapse of existing order, the reshaping of alliances and the redefinition of sovereignty are unfolding simultaneously.
this Article Originally published loop and republished here under a Creative Commons license.
–
***
A Good Men ProjectWe are happy to work from Syndicate loopThe European Consortium for Political Research’s public-facing platform for concise, accessible analysis on politics, policy, and social issues. Loop’s mission is to bring political science into conversation with the wider world through research and examination of current events in a way that is useful not only to scholars, but also to policy-makers, journalists and general readers.
We value that approach because the principles that shape public life are never just abstract arguments. They influence who feels safe, who is represented, whose rights are held and what kind of society people are asked to live in. Loop is particularly powerful when it shows how democracy, governance, power and institutional design work in the context of ordinary people, and its coverage often extends to questions of gender, exclusion, democratic retreat and citizen voice.
This is one reason this work belongs to GMP. We have always been interested in the overlap between inner life and public life, shaping what is possible between personal identities and systems. A publication like The Loop helps amplify that conversation. It reminds us that democracy is not just an electoral outcome or a theory in textbooks. It is a lived condition, which touches on family life, belonging, fairness, gender, power, and people believe that the institutions around them are still capable of protecting human dignity. It’s a conversation we’re excited to bring to our readers.
***
There are many ways to support Good Men Projectits mission. You can sign up for our email newsletter, become a premium member, and follow our wide-ranging conversations about democracy, identity, culture, relationships, and how public systems shape everyday life. We also work with authors, agencies, brands and sponsors through our author enhancement and paid guest post programs. For more information, email (email protected).
If you believe in the work we’re doing at The Good Men Project, please join us as a Premium Member today.
All premium members can watch The Good Men Project without any ads.
Need more information? A full list of benefits is here.
–
Photo credit: splash
