The demise of NAFTA illustrates once again how the force of commerce cannot transcend the political.

Warnings of ‘rearmament’ in Germany and Japan might make for an easy analogy but they miss the point: The question is not whether these countries are increasing military capabilities, but why they are. And here is where the historical comparisons start to fall apart.

A data-based view of globalization suggests not a binary process of integration-isolation, but rather a layered network structure in which states occupy distinct positional roles in the global economy. It’s not participation that determines a state’s power, but where it’s situated in the global system.

A theoretical reading of the Gaza conflict reveals a world in which international humanitarian law remains formally intact but functionally conditional.

Structural indicators of hegemony like military, institutional, and financial capacity suggest that the US global power is far more likely to decline than collapse outright.

Recent speeches by King Charles III in the US and Italy illustrate how non-elected heads of state are regaining a non-marginal role in the processes of legitimizing major foreign and security policy choices.

The Iran war and other geopolitical ruptures are allowing Washington to reposition itself from systemic guarantor to indispensable supplier. This new role generates revenue where the previous one generated only obligation, while simultaneously converting the dependency it once protected others from into a dependency directed at Washington itself.

A field guide to the four theories that actually explain international relations. None alone can explain the evolution of international society. But taken together, they are the best and only way to decode complex international events.

The Iran war raises fundamental questions about who has the authority to shape a story and how much control anyone should have over wartime information in a democratic society.

From the Sahel to Iraq, authority is produced through negotiation among distributed actors rather than imposed by centralized institutions. US diplomacy continues to ignore these sovereign ecosystems at its own peril.

Iran has demonstrated an ability to operate across a broad regional landscape and to absorb external pressure, but this should not be conflated with the emergence of a stable, rising global power.

Iran's selective passage list in the Strait of Hormuz reveals a logic that Alfred Thayer Mahan's framework cannot explain — but a ninth-century Islamic jurist anticipated with precision.

In the heartland of ancient Persia, the lines in the sand of West Asia’s geoeconomic map are being redrawn.

The ongoing conflict between Israel, the US, and Iran recalls one of the most famous episodes of the Peloponnesian war, where hubris paved the way for disaster.

There is no middle ground for post-Putin Russia. It will either remain a feral, aggressive, isolated Empire, or it will fall apart with a deafening crash. A transitional, cozy European alternative for this territory simply does not exist.

The end of the era of global alliances marks the beginning of a new security architecture, one in which effectiveness is ensured by flexibility and security rests on concrete, targeted action between like-minded allies.

The Court in The Hague can issue judgments, but the world must decide whether they matter.

Alliances are failing to fulfill their key function of preventing conflicts. Rather, they are devolving into sources of tension as the old rulebook of collective security no longer corresponds to global realities.

Without stable, predictable governance and insurance companies willing to cover Venezuelan risks, tactical military success will not translate into sustained economic engagement.

The removal of Nicolás Maduro may satisfy Washington’s appetite for decisive action, but it does not amount to regime change.