See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352660500
The Rise of the New Power Blocs in the Global System
Research · June 2021
CITATIONS
READS
0
1,342
1 author:
Iraj Roudgar
https://sites.google.com/view/roudgariraj/home
180 PUBLICATIONS 22 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
US Presidential Election 2020 P7 View project
GLOBAL PANDEMIC , All works in Corona-virus Available in public view View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Iraj Roudgar on 22 June 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
The Rise of the New Power Blocs
Iraj Roudgar August 2020
Abstract: The post-Cold War era is over and we are moving from the age of liberal order to the
age of global claims in the international system. This study examines the impact of political
beliefs on international relations between states and their alliances in the world system as well as
its role in foreign policy formulation. In the Post-Cold War era, political culture is the main
source of the foreign policy of the countries involved in conflict in the contemporary world. I
argue that the situation in our contemporary world is different from the post-Cold War and the
theories of international relations are not sufficient and appropriate to respond to the current
states relations and its contradictions. So, the post-Cold War era is over and we have entered a
new era of relations between states in the international system. Political culture is the
predominant element in social movements and political change.
Keywords: Political belief, political culture, international system, foreign policy, conflict
1. Introduction
Theories of the Cold War era in international relations were formulated and taken into account
with the assumptions of their time, and now, like the Berlin Wall, it is only a symbol of the Cold
War. Because China was not yet an emerging economic power and had not built artificial islands
in the South China Sea, and sent a spacecraft to the moon, Russia was embroiled in internal
bombings and oligarchy, and Putin had not yet annexed the Crimean peninsula to Russia and
participated in the war in Syria, North Korea has been involved in International Atomic Energy
Agency resolutions and has not yet acquired a nuclear bomb, and Iran has been involved in a war
with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and has not yet acquired long-range missiles and was not
expanding its influence in the Middle East, and for the US-led Western world, human rights and
democracy in the world were valuable, and most importantly, the United States did not yet have
a populist president, and so on. The post-Cold War era is over and the world is transitioning
1
from a period of liberal order to an era of global claims. Tensions and the polarization of
American society at home in relation to the current political situation and increasing tensions in
US foreign policy in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific regions are the consequences of the liberal
order's confrontation with the emergence of global claims.
Brexit in the European Union, Turkey's distance from the West, Iran's proximity to China,
ineffectiveness of the Singapore Summit, and unprecedented tensions in US-China relations are
all signs of a new era in international system that is rooted in political culture. The post-Cold
War era is over. We have entered a new era of relations between states in the international
system.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the greatest achievements of our time.
However, it is formed in the interests of states and national sovereignty, not in the interests and
rights of nations. This is a contradiction in the text of the declaration. Political culture plays a
decisive role in determining national interests as well as instances of conflict with national
interests which includes a set of principles for the rights of individuals. But the important point is
that when it comes to human rights, has it paid attention to ancient cultures and their roots in the
history of human societies? For example, the equality of women's rights, which mentioned in this
period, and many efforts are made to establish equal rights for men and women in a tribe in a
remote area or even closer to a capital, they agree on gender equality. Or that part of society
itself does not agree with this equality of women and is willing to stick to the same Old
Testament that relies on inequality.
Unfortunately, in patriarchal societies known as the right to blood, fathers are still allowed to kill
the daughters of sisters or wives. Rather, in the face of larger errors, women are treated as equals
and fathers and brothers are not optionally punished. Revenge and killing without any legal
problem for them is considered by the tribe as a sign of the height of greed and a social thing
called zeal of manhood. The contradiction here is that in many of these traditional societies, and
even in the divine religions, abortion is an anti-god phenomenon that has been defined as divine
punishment. But in the followers of the same divine religions and tribal traditions and traditional
families, fathers and brothers have the right to blood for a mistake or error of a female sex, for
which there is no severe punishment equal to the death penalty in traditional or current legal
2
laws. It is called zeal and defense of honor. This morning at breakfast I was watching a movie
(Orion) in this regard. I could not continue watching it until the end. Unfortunately, our
international law only marks our historical experience as a sign of Nazi Germany's invasion of
Europe and the occupation of various European countries and ethnic genocide. Laws have been
formed based on opposition to that situation and respect for national sovereignty. Involvement in
other issues such as women rights, child rights, climate change, nature conservation, animal
rights, and issues such as new social movements.
Globalization is over. We have entered a new era of relations between states in the international
system, for which we have not yet been able to choose a name due to the ambiguity in the
concept and interconnectedness of unexpected events and the complexity of relations. This
means change and progress in the political culture of the world and its unique and privileged role
in determining the interests as well as in conflict with the interests of others. However, the
foreign policy is based on the love of all cultures or the foreign policy based on self-love and
hatred of the other culture, which is one of the politico-cultural differences between the two sides
in this conflict which comes from the political culture. Is this our problem? Or this is the
international law that governs our world.

The United States in the Age of Global Claims
The main objectives of the US National Security Strategy in regional commitments is to ensure
the balance of power and advance world order to prevent Chinese aggression in the Asia- Pacific,
Russia in Europe, and Iran in the Middle East, and defend US global interests from challenges in
armed conflict (Mattis, 2018). A brief look at the US policies1 demonstrates that during World
War I, the U.S. policies supported Britain and France in the war. Through World War II, the
United States, by supporting its allies in Europe, became the Arsenal of Democracy and defeated
Nazism. During the Cold War, the United States did not attempt to defeat Russia militarily but
defeated Russia in an arms race, collapsed. Then, the United States, with the most favourable
prospects for using US power in the international arena towards a "New World Order" that was
1
The story began with the United States because the United States is the world's largest economic, political, economic, and
military superpower, and decisions made in the United States will affect the global system.
3
for the first time, faced a common theme in conspiracy theories through an authoritarian world
government. In the aftermath of the Cold War, US policy also pursued military presence and the
possibility of military interventions in the Middle East and Asia- Pacific region, independently
and separately from each other or simultaneously and interdependently in order to repel the axis
of evil and secure global interests. Where tensions are currently high between the United States
and other key powers in the region, Iran in the Middle East and China in the Asian region are at
their peak, and a military conflict is imminent.
International order is defined as the body of laws, norms, and institutions that govern the
relations between the main actors on the international stage. With the right institutions and
diplomacy, liberals believe that countries can work together to maximize prosperity and
minimize conflict. Liberalism contains a variety of concepts and arguments and when compared
to realism, it adds more factors to our field of vision - especially the attention of citizens and
international organizations. Most importantly, liberalism has been a traditional form of realism in
International Relations theory because it offers a more optimistic worldview, based on a different
reading of history from what is in realist knowledge (Meiser, 2018).
Shortly after the end of World War II, American balance of power and grand strategy bounties
yielded its many institutions and partnerships. The most important of these were the alliance of
NATO and the United States-Japan (Ikenberry, 2005). In this view, the United States is involved
in the application of unipolar power between liberal and ruling and imperialist logics and the
impulses can be found deep in America body politic.
The details of the U.S. foreign policy vary from government to government, including an
emphasis on promoting democracy and humanitarian goals, but over 70 years, every president
has been embroiled in a fundamental decision of deeply engaged in the world, even as a logical
reason for that, the strategy has shifted (Brooks & Ikenberry, 2013). Thus, an important part of
the U.S. presidential election speech is foreign policy, which should address the unresolved
issues of human society, and the solution to this problem in the international arena.2 The
prominence of the president's speech, especially in foreign policy shows that America's allies
also rivals waiting to hear it.
2
United States presidential transition usually accompanied by a general shift in foreign policy.
4
The theory of hegemonic stability is usually associated with the international political economy
and maintaining the balance of power in key areas and promotes open international economies,
which are a liberal approach to international politics and a realistic account of foreign policy in
international relations ( Paul et al, 2004).3 According to the “Hegemonic Stability Theory”, the
health of global economy in the international system depends on single dominant power
(Keohane, 1984). Advocates of the theory argue that the stability of the international system
requires a single dominant state to articulate and enforce the rules of interaction among the most
important members of the system. According to Keohane (1984), hegemons are leaving weak
countries to join cooperative regimes that reduce transaction costs, reduce uncertainty and create
constant expectations for economic interactions.4 But in balance power, war often erupts between
great powers and very weak states.5 Hegemonic stability points to the value of a single dominant
provider of order, where in economics or security affairs. (Mazarr et al, 2017)6
The balance of power in preventing hegemony is supposed to be so important that hegemony is
important whenever international spatial parameters are constant and power can be concentrated
( Wohlforth et al, 2007). In this view, the unipolar structure of the current international system is
neither historically nor theoretically unusual. But a liberal world order is possible only in
unipolar system, earlier the advent of China as the world's largest exporter. American liberal
internationalism believes that the United States should not spend its time without the need for
savings. The United States should invest in, and even share its superiority with other countries
and alliances. This should be used for clear liberal purposes, because liberal internationalism
claims that political and economic liberalism is possible for all countries (Owen, 2018).
Proponents of the "balance of power" argue that the most stable, if not the most peaceful,
situation for an international or governmental system is the one in which the most powerful state
(Inis & Claude , 1989).7 Advocates of the idea argue that hegemony is balanced by the
unification of other less powerful states, which prevents it from conquering all the countries in
3
(Paul, Wirtz, and Fortmann 2004, 112-114). Paul asserts that the way balance of power conclusion themselves can create
paradox and eruption of war between strong and weak states.(P, 129)
4
(Keohane 1984, 137-138)
5
(Inis and Claude 1989, 121-122)
6
(Mazarr, Michael, Stuth, Cevallos, and Priebe 2017, 150-151)
7
(Inis and Claude 1989, 77-85)
5
the system (Melko, 2018). Realism thus presents an equilibrium theory, depicting the forces that
operate in order to return the system to balance (Stein, 1993).
There are also two different perspectives on the United States’ current strategy and increased
military presence, and security commitments in maintaining regional stability in the international
system. During the Cold War, the United States pursued a grand strategy of "deep engagement,"
a series of security commitments to partners in Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East.8 Based
on the historical experience, supporters of the security commitments believe that the strategy of
“deep engagement” to partners in the regions would put major security and economic benefits at
risk (Norrlof et al, 2019). Conversely, advocates the strategy of “Offshore Balancing” calls for
the reduction of US security commitments abroad by mainly scaling back U.S. forward military
presence and devolving the primary responsibility in maintaining regional stability to regional
player and they must engage self-help to survive (Walt, 2018). Realist scholars argue that
“Offshore Balancing” is a twenty-first-century strategy consistent with America’s interests and
its values (Layne, 1997). Contrary to its Realist image, sponsors of “Deep Engagement” assert
that the U.S. presence is a force for stability, reducing the need for arms build-ups and deterring
the rise of hegemonic forces ( Brooks & Ikenberry, 2013). Offshore balancers believe that the
United States needs to pursue a much stronger and more restrictive foreign policy - this would
change its relationship to liberal order (Brands, 2016). Contrary to offshore balancers, Kagan
believes that today the challenges of liberal order and democracy are greater than those of the
Cold War (Kagan, 2018).
The Offshore Balance initially is a realist model in international relations which it describes a
strategy of great power that looks at the multiplicity of correlations - when international relations
are ruled by many superpowers - as an opportunity and rather than as a threat. For example, in
the early 21st century, advocates of maritime equilibrium argue that trying to maintain the
United States hegemony as the world only superpower will cause other countries to unite against
the states and ultimately reduce its relative power. According to this view, the United States
8
After World War II, the United States established bases and deployed troops to East Asia, Europe, and the Middle East in a
global strategic competition with the former Soviet Union.
6
cannot prevent the emergence of new great powers, it must move towards a strategy of shifting
the burden so that others can maintain the balance of regional power and solving problems.
But in Mearsheimer (2019) view, the new multipolar world will three realistic orders: a thin
world order that facilitates cooperation, and two limited orders - one controlled by China and the
other by the United States - ready to provide security competition between them. It this view the
world will organize a system of containment to beat them in a longer-term contest of economic
and political systems that world essentially will be divided between the United States and China,
similar to the bipolar world during the Cold War accompanied by several regional powers in the
international system.
So, one of the main differences between the two groups is whether or not to allow a great power
to emerge. In the midst of these two different theoretical perspectives, there is also another
opinion in the Trump administration that believes the United States is not the world's police and
should not interfere in endless wars, American forces should return home. But in Trump's
discourse, there is no sign of an effort to promote human rights and democracy abroad, not
similar to the realist model. During the Post-Cold War, political events show that none of the
theories mentioned are incapable of understanding the events in the regions and provide regional
stability model.
In the traditional international relations theories of realism, liberalism and constructivism, the
importance of subjective themes such political culture as an influential factor in foreign policy in
the international system has been ignored.
3. China, Russia, Iran, and Turkey in the age of Global Claims
During the Cold War, the United States could not defeat the Soviet Union militarily, so it set up a
containment system to bring the country into political, economic, and technological competition
to bring it to its knees. At the end of the Cold War in 1978, Deng Xiaoping abolished Mao
culture policies and introduced China to the new world. During this period, the Iranian antiimperialist Islamic Revolution took place in1979. Shortly afterwards, in 1991, the dissolution of
the Soviet Union coincided with the end of the Cold War, and the official end of the Cold War
7
was announced, and we entered the post-Cold War era. This period ended with the Iraqi invasion
of Iran and then Kuwait, and finally the US operation to defeat Saddam and then against the
Islamic State of Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan.
We have entered a new era of international relations in the world system, which may be said to
have begun with the Russian invasion of Georgia and the annexation of the Crimean Island to
Russia, and continued with Brexit in Europe. In the Asia, in 2006, North Korea formally
withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and China proved its technological
prowess to the world by creating artificial islands in the South China Sea and sending spacecraft
to the moon. Iran by expanding its missile programs as well as reaches Israeli border by taking
part in Syrian civil war, Russia proves global influence in Middle East by Putin's air force on
operations against ISIS. President Trump's proclamation of "America is the first" is a turning
point in the history of international relations because it has provoked many reactions, even from
close allies of the United States. The recent global spread of the coronavirus and its maximum
death toll in the United States has increased tensions between the country and China to an
unprecedented level.
Here we need to take a look at China's past political history. Communist China with a traditional
economy and closed political relations with other countries of the world and China after the
liberation of the Mao Cultural Revolution with open political doors and advanced and growing
economy that has made it one of the largest countries in the production and export of goods to
the world Which, along with technological advances in the military and civilian fields, has made
this country one of the greatest real threats to the United States in the contemporary world.
Nixon's visit to China in 1972 may be seen as a turning point in relations between the two
countries during the Cold War, as well as a change in political and economic relations between
the two superpowers in the Cold War.
To clarify the role of political culture in relations between countries, it is necessary to mention
the role of this culture in political and economic development. China is a good example of two
different or even contradictory political cultures in political and economic development in recent
years. Communist China with its traditional and rural economy and closed political relations with
other countries of the world and modern China after the liberation from the Mao Cultural
8
Revolution with open political doors and advanced and growing economy that make it the largest
country in the production and export of goods. The world has changed, which, along with
technological advances in the military and civilian fields, has made the country one of the
greatest potential threats to the United States in the contemporary world.
Major changes in the foreign policy of countries, as well as huge economic and military leaps
and influences in international relations, which are fundamentally different from the post-Cold
War era, all indicate that we have entered a new era in relations between countries. Entering this
new era, we can boldly say that the outbreak of coronavirus in the late second decade of the 21st
century, both in terms of similarity to viruses of previous periods such as Ebola and the like in
terms of volume and spread of vulnerability and penetration around the world and in terms of the
impact on the world economy and diplomatic relations between countries and the hospital
problems and human casualties have been significantly different from the viruses of the previous
period.
Trump, with the slogan of America First, China, with the belief in dominating the world
economy, Russia, with the belief in gaining the empire of the past, and Iran and Turkey, each
with the belief in the creation of Islamic civilization, contributed to this transition. Turkey's
proximity to Russia, Brexit, Russia invention Gorgias in Europe, Iran's rapprochement with
China, and the recent Israel-UAE deal in the Middle East9, despite disagreements in the East and
agreements in the West, artificial islands in the South China Sea and claim to annex Taiwan by
China in Asia-Pacific region all signal a strategic shift in international relations and the
formation of new coalitions in the global system. New power blocs and rising tensions have
given a new face to international relations in the world of politics.
In the transition from the post-Cold War period to the new era, China is one of the most
influential changes in economic growth and increasing military capability and undeniable
ambiguity in the field of advanced technology and robotic knowledge in the world, so that this
country is the symbol of the change from the post-Cold War period to the new era. However, due
9
The Peace deal between Israel-UAE and its presence in the Persian Gulf approach to Iran's borders will increase security threats
against Iran.
9
to the complexity and rapid process of change in the world of economics and technology and
political behaviors with dubious ambiguities, no nominal period has been chosen.
This transition in international relations in the world system has also changed the choice of
friend and foe. Who are the friends and foes of the age of universal claim? We have entered an
era in which, as in the past, the enemy of my enemy can no longer necessarily be my friend. My
enemy's enemy is my friend is over. My enemy's enemy can also be my enemy. But the
cooperation of the old enemy may one day come in handy, and the existence of this old enemy
may be necessary in the future to fight the new enemy. In complete disbelief and initial
astonishment, President Trump brings another shock to the world of politics and the importance
of foreign relations in influencing domestic political events. Two strategic enemies of the Cold
War, they were directly at war with each other for three years, meet and embrace taking photo
that souvenir photo of them is published in the media, as a historic meeting of leaders. But the
story did not end there. After a short time, missiles with newer capabilities and higher than
previous missiles were tested and tested. I did not see a reaction from the United States about
these missile tests. We have entered a new world.
These changes are seen even in armed political groups. A little further in the Middle East, the
Taliban, which once attacked the consulate of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Mazar-e-Sharif and
killed ten Iranian diplomats in 1998, is now operating in Tehran's Mellat Park with its flag and
chanting slogans against President Ghani's government, as a fanatical group claiming to rule
Afghanistan. The Taliban recently held lengthy talks with US envoys in Qatar to bring peace to
Afghanistan, but no concrete results were achieved. Prolonged talks between US envoys led by
Zalmai Khalilzad and Taliban representatives in Qatar was continued for several months to reach
a peace agreement in Afghanistan. Trump's goal in these talks was to reduce the internal conflict
in Afghanistan, as well as to reduce American troops in the country, which naturally had a
positive effect on the US presidential election. Civil war continues in Afghanistan US announces
reward for abduction of US troops in Afghanistan US's reference to Russia, but it was
immediately denied. Meanwhile, Trump had previously allowed the FBI to brief Putin on
information about a terrorist operation in Moscow. And Mr. Putin thanked the President for this.
Analysis of recent events in the world of politics reminds us of the current state of international
10
relations. Now, what country is this Taliban group friend with and what country is it hostile to. In
an age of Global Claims, armed political groups like the Taliban are establishing international
political ties. The Taliban has established political ties with both Iran and the United States, two
strategic and long-time enemies in the region. At a critical juncture in history, the Taliban will
choose the United States or Iran? What about the Taliban's political intelligence? In the Taliban
strategy, which country is a Foe and which is a Friend country?
This new view of power, although seemingly trying to comply with international standards on
human rights and democracy, will spare no means of destroying it in the face of real enemies. In
the eyes of this new power of democracy in today's world, efficiency It is not necessary to
govern the second and third world societies only for the advancement of society, the
improvement of economic issues in the shadow of this new power. The Chinese president was
quoted as saying, "How do you respond to the lack of democracy in your country?" The
president replied, "Democracy or no democracy, it does not matter. It is important that the
system works properly, responds to the needs of society, has business relations without
interfering in their internal affairs, and has the necessary efficiency in the modern world. The
reporter did not ask any questions about the millions of Uighur Muslims living in Chinese
government captivity, which may have contradicted the Chinese government's philosophy of
power.
When Iran came to a standstill in the war against ISIS in Syria, Putin entered Syria with his air
force at the invitation of the country and helped to defeat ISIS. Then he faced the issue that Iran
and Israel are fighting in Syria and he has political relations with both countries. What should be
done now? It was not a big problem; it was enough that Russian radar stations ignored the arrival
of Israeli fighter jets to bomb Iranian positions in Syria. Iran did not react. As of this writing,
Russia has political relations with both countries, although Iran and Israel are at war outside their
territories. Well, one difference is that in the past, during the Cold War and even after the Cold
War, the great powers usually supported one of the parties to the conflict.
While Trump came to power ‘America is First’ slogan became as the U.S. foreign policy
doctrine toward global rules and cooperation. The growing power of populist movements
indicate that many other countries’ leaders repeat Trump's slogan with other words but the same
11
meaning due to different kind of political goals.10 At the same time, Putin claims to a global
position are based solely on his military prowess and apparent willingness to serve Syria,
Georgia and Ukraine are living proof of this assumption. It is also an implicitly security threat to
Europe as a Nuclear power and his dream to create a new empire or the only superior power in
Europe.
It should be noted that in this regard, Turkey and Iran are also seeking to create a new Islamic
civilization based on their religious values in the globe.11 Turkish government provides financial
assistance to schools that teach Islamic values. Turkish president has said he wants to create a "pious
generation" to change the country. In other words, he seeks a Sunni-style Islamic revolution similar
to Iran's Shiite-Islamic Revolution, without fundamentally changing the current power structure.
Iran, as an example, Al-Mustafa International University is an educational institution and one of
the most important organs of Iran for the spread of Shiite Islam in other countries. This
organization is located in the city of Qom and has branches in 60 countries. The former head of
this organization said that University has about 40,000 foreign students and the same numbers of
graduates and about fifty million people in the world have become Shiites through the network
of Al-Mustafa University.12 This universal claim of international relations is not necessarily
similar to the current order, which is dependent on US military and economic power and
diplomacy, and instead uses religion as an effective weapon in foreign policy to influence the
policies of target countries. The audience of this claim, unlike in the past, is not limited to a
specific geography, religion, race, language, or regional and global allies, it includes all the
people of the world.
It is very difficult for researchers and many political institutions even university professors13 in
developed democracies to understand the political cultures in developing societies. Putin in
Russia, for example, is trying to win the popularity of the Orthodox Church after the collapse of
10
China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Even India, Brasilia, Indonesia, Even ISIS had a global claim.
The issue of creating a new civilization has been repeated many times by the leaders of the countries. But the lack of a
universal culture and appropriate economic infrastructure will make it difficult to achieve this civilization, and it will often be
impossible to remain a political slogan. Putin and Erdogan also try to create a long-term, permanent president by changing their
constitution.
12
IRIB News Agency, ۱۳۹۶ ‫ مرداد‬۸ .‫مهرنیوز‬, https://rasanews.ir/fa/news/244054/, Search Results
Web results , Al-mustafa International University - RIPE NCC
13
In this regard, I have discussed with a number of editors of world political journals who were university professors, who
unfortunately did not know about the situation and basically believed in the theories of international relations at the present time.
11
12
the former Soviet Union.14 Putin's biography provides a basis for a detailed analysis of the
geopolitical representations in his photographs, as well as hegemonic discourse on the general
forms of masculinity in Russia (Foxall, 2013). Following the collapse of the former Soviet
empire and subsequent developments inside Russia led to Putin's rise to power in the country.
Putin sought Russia's global prestige and role in international developments by military
intervention in the Syrian civil war and annexation of Crimean Peninsula as symbol of the power
and influential role in global conflicts.
As in the above lines, how long-term president or leader remains in power in the system of
power transfer in these countries, is not like the usual method of power transfer in Western
systems or in Eastern systems as monarchy and hereditary. The incumbent is elected during the
lifetime of the current personal leader and tries not to disrupt the pyramid of power in a
systematic structure, in other words, the new leader remains loyal to the ideas of the previous
leader. This approach has been experienced in China's current political structure, extending the
term of the current Chinese leader. In Turkey and Russia, Erdogan and Putin are the first leader
at the top of the power pyramid.15 In other words, it is the first period of this system and no
transfer has taken place yet. However, in Iran there has been a transfer and power has not been
transferred from father to son. This is the structure of power and leadership and how to change
the leader in the era of global claims, which is completely different from previous eras. This
system of power learns from the positive points of other countries and tries to implement positive
actions in their own country.16 However, it is against public culture or the judiciary. Iran, for
example, has recently tried to implement a Chinese anti-corruption system in Iran.
In the age of Global Claims, the difference between this system and the Western system led by
the United States and these countries of Western Europe and more recently after the end of the
Cold War includes the countries of the Eastern bloc and Central Asia. In this American Union,
democracy as a common culture in all Countries is accepted. It can be said that public culture is
14
During the launch of the Soyuz spacecraft from the Baikonur base, a priest from the Orthodox Church blesses the spacecraft
and astronauts with prayer.
15
Both Putin and Erdogan will remain in office during the presidency, and will remain in the shadows as advisers or, more
precisely, as leaders, if there is a need to shift power before death.
16
These countries are somehow working together in the field of world politics today, and sometimes even have a rational point of
view in the face of Europe. Perhaps these actions are against the unilateral decisions of the current US administration. For
example, UN Security Council rejects US offer to impose arms embargo on Russia, China reject it Europe rejects Dominican
Republic likely positive.
13
the rule of democracy, but in this Eastern system, each country has its own public culture, which
may sometimes be in conflict with another country. For example, services that are exposed to
tourists in Moscow and in the form of public entertainment may not exist in Tehran. Or in
Turkey, a religious country with important and large mosques in Istanbul and Beijing, such a
case is not seen. These countries do not interfere in each other's internal affairs. Iran and Turkey
are important countries of Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Currently, about two million Uyghur
Muslims are under the most severe social hardships, but these two countries do not object to
China's behavior. So religion is not a common element in the union. However, the United States
and other Western human rights organizations may oppose China's treatment of this Muslim
minority in the country.
On the other sides in the Middle East, for example, although Hezbollah follows the patterns of
the Shiite religion of Islam and is politically compatible with Tehran, you do not see any
resemblance to Tehran in Beirut in terms of social culture.17 Or differences in the way the
Chinese government treats the people of Hong Kong and other parts of mainland China. The
people of Hong Kong staged a series of demonstrations against the Chinese government's control
of domestic law, which the Chinese took in response to seemingly unsuccessful actions. All of
these countries share a common political belief both internally and within the framework of the
goals of the unions, and in other cases there may or may not be a common denominator, meaning
that in other cases the discussion of religion, language and other issues is not effective. That is
why different religions and cultures come together and operate within one political belief. This is
another characteristic of the age of global claims. Whereas in the former Soviet Union the
Communist Party was sensitive to religious activities and opposed it, although it was not a sharp
arrow attacking religion. But in Putin's new Russian system, religious activities have nothing to
do with the existence of sovereignty unless there is another activity at its edges, such as terrorist
operations and the like.
At a time when the world is facing a growing health crisis with the spread of the coronavirus and
human casualties, the political culture of countries and behavioral intentions of leaders and
citizens towards the coronavirus pandemic can be the best measurable example of how to control
17
For example, women in Lebanon or Turkey can participate in society with or without hijab, while in Iran, hijab is mandatory
for women, or that liquor stores operate in Turkey or Lebanon, but in Iran, drinking is prohibited and carries heavy fines.
14
the virus in different societies. A case that flips the world of politics today, the potential impacts
of the coronavirus on the liberal world order also have been a subject of public and academics
debates in many societies besides conversations on social media. Post-coronavirus pandemic and
especially its many deaths in the United States, a number articles has been published and
interviews done that we will witness the rise of new world order.18 At the same time, there is a
conflict of strategic interests – for example- in a small area in Syria among the United States,
Russia, Iran, Israel and Turkey, along with other extremists groups by support of Arabs sheikhs,
long-term and high human casualties. Unsurprisingly, there is no way to fight the coronavirus in
any of the health care systems in the world, that there may never be a definitive solution to
eradicate it.
As case, one of the main reasons for the increase in the prevalence of the virus in the world is to
mass gathering religious and sports and other ceremonies and non-observance of social distance.
The way citizens interact collectively in human societies is different and is rooted in culture that
governs that society according to standards accepted by people. Thus, the spread of the
coronavirus is directly related to how mass contacts take place in societies which depends on the
political culture of different communities. On the other hand, the government's policies in
preparing guidelines and monitoring in preventing rallies are very important in reducing the
spread of the corona. Close cooperation of two elements is necessary to get rid of the
coronavirus. Once the government, by setting strict regulations and monitoring them in society
and the other is people, who, by complying with these rules and social distancing, dry up the
roots of this health crisis. Political culture at this stage can be two sides of the same coin, or a
society with the most infected with the virus or the least infected with the coronavirus. The
government and the people should at least trust each other in this matter, due to its power of
spread, contamination, easy transmission, and difficult hospitality treatment and painful death,
and so on.
The geographical boundaries of this emerging power bloc are bordered on the north by North
America along its border with Europe and Central Asia and extended to East Asia, which ends in
West Asia. In other words, China and North Korea in East Asia, Russia in the Europe, Turkey in
18
Vast articles published and interviews done that the coronavirus pandemic lead to a new world order.
15
the Central Asia and Iran in the Middle East. In terms of military power, three countries, China,
Russia and North Korea have nuclear weapons and have relatively good relations with Europe.
Only Iran and North Korea have hostile relations with the United States. China and Russia are
two permanent members of the Security Council with a privileged right Veto.19 Economically,
China is the world's largest producer and Russia is one of the countries with huge gas and oil
reserves in the European region, and Iran is one of the most powerful and influential countries in
the Middle East.
Now that the US government has turned a blind eye to China and Iran, these countries can help
each other in the form of this power bloc, which China and Russia in the recent resolution
against Iran are examples of such cooperation.20 There is still a long way to go before they
decide to confront the United States, and changes in the power structure in the United States,
especially in November, may diminish this cooperation due to a possible reduction in US
pressure, but the structure is not structurally changeable. The countries within the bloc have
political and economic influence in the age of global claims individually in Africa, South
America, the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.
The US government's recent stance and negotiations with Asia and Europe on military spending
have led Europe to vote out of its current US policy in a recent Security Council resolution.21 US
allies in East Asia Japan and South Korea have shown less interest in the United States than in
the past, and Japan has recently begun large-scale economic ties with China.22 However, in the
Middle East du to Israeli interests a peace treaty has been signed between Israel and the UAE.
Meanwhile, with the increase of missile tests and the increase of actions in the Persian Gulf
region by Iran and a joint naval maneuver with China and Russia, showing their greater
dissatisfaction with the US regional policies against their country.23 The US Strategic
Establishment, also published on the Web in 2018 by James Mattis, does not mention any of
these, and only China, North Korea and Iran are cited as security threats to US interests in
19
There are various opinions that ‘veto’ is a right or a privilege and some others believe that this issue should be removed from
the UN Security Council.
20
China, Russia both reject US proposed letter to UN Security Council ban on arms sales to Iran
21
Britain, France and Germany abstained in the Security Council on a proposed US resolution against Iran
22
Due to their historical background and growing economic ties, China and Japan could forge a new alliance between the two
Asian economic giants through warmer political ties in the region.
23
Joint message of Iran, Russia and China to the world, Tehran Times January 5, 2020
16
general.24 Thus ended the Liberal world order, which was the legacy of the Cold War season and
in which the United States aspired to a greater Middle East with democratic movements. In the
current world system, there are three blocks of political power. It has traditionally included the
United States and its allies in Europe and East Asia and the Middle East. And the recent
emerging powers, which include China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and North Korea, are in a global
bloc of claims. It seems that the US presidential election can lead the international system to
three blocs or divide the previous system into two blocs of power. It is a system similar to the
Cold War era with new decorations has global goals. The strategic goals of this political
approach are either to return to the great empire of the past, such as the dream of Putin and
Erdogan, or to create a new Chinese-style empire by relying on the productive power of the
world or by relying on a particular religion such as Iran.
Today's events in the world of politics, the US conflict with China and Iran and the proximity of
these two countries show that Huntington's25 opinion on Confucian- Islam was incorrect, - the
closeness of the religions of Confucius and Islam was incorrect – but in the sense that today
China and Iran are linked in the world of politics it’s happened. So in terms of the relationship
between Islam and Confucius there is no connection between the two religions. These two
political beliefs, one in China and one in Iran, have two different religions that have united or are
forming an alliance against a common enemy called the United States. In other words,
Huntington's statement about the future of the Sino-Iranian alliance against Western interests
was a correct prediction, but his statement that this alliance is rooted in Islam and Confucius is
incorrect. So, this is not a religious alliance with common religious roots. The place of the new
alliance between China and Iran against American interests in this conflict is rooted in political
beliefs.
It should be noted that the political stance of the current US administration, with its tough stance
against China, Iran and sometimes Turkey, has accelerated and exposed this shift in the postCold War transition period and the entry into the global claims era. US economic sanctions have
24
Mattis, J. (2018). Summary of the 2018 national defense strategy of the United States of America : sharpening the American
military's competitive edge. Department of Defense. Washington D. C Department of Defense, National Defense Strategy
25
Huntington was very outspoken and did not hesitate to express his views, explicit account, which was first heard in the
academic world of politics. He linked the process of relations and complexities of the past world with the present world and
presented a great and influential political idea in international relations.
17
always been one of the most powerful tools of US foreign policy to put pressure on other
countries in the field of international relations, accompanied by European allies. The continued
political pressure on Iran by the United States and the non-approval of the proposed resolution
banning the sale of arms to this country by the Security Council and its non-approval by the
permanent members of this Security Council is one of the least effective US have been
unprecedented in US foreign policy. However, the signing of a peace treaty between Israel and
the United Arab Emirates in the Middle East, with the support of the United States and Europe,
is another sign of a new era in international relations.26
In the age of global claims, the unique and special role of leadership is unchangeable and
uncritical. The unchanging and permanent nature of the leader is enshrined in the constitutions of
North Korea and Iran, and Putin has been appointed President of the Russian Duma indefinitely
as President of China for a second term, and Turkey is going through the prostate process. This
special position of leadership in Western countries is alien to the democratic system and is
common only in tribal systems and monarchies. Criticism of the leadership in this age of global
claims will lead to a strong reaction from the government and will not be tolerated. Determining
foreign policy and major strategic and security issues is usually within the authority of this leader
in the age of global claims. At the macro level, oversight and aristocracy over the activities of the
three main branches in the country that including the executive and parliament, and the judiciary
are within the authority of the Supreme Leader. In other words, all country authority is
concentrated in the leadership apparatus. Cases those are not acceptable in current democracies.
In the age of global claims, Belief in leadership is the peak of loyalty and service to the country
and is the criterion for selecting sensitive jobs in the government and other executive, legislative
and judicial bodies. As beliefs, a number of these leaders have sought to include the permanent
and unchangeable status of the presidency in the country's constitution. For example, Putin now
contemplating a fourth presidential term and recent referendum in Russia allows Putin to remain
president for 2036. Iran and North Korea have Permanent Supreme leaders. Xi Jinping
reappointed for the second term as China's president. It is also a sign of the existing political
culture and beliefs that governs these nations. The political structure in these countries is
26
This is mid-August 2020, European countries supported the peace of Israel- UAE and opposed the US resolution against arms
sales to Iran. This is one of the first examples of non-cooperation of US allies, especially Britain in the new era.
18
organized in such a way that only the current leaders can maintain political stability in the States.
However the leaders have no strong rivals in these countries. So, the leader charisma and
inviolable personality is not considered an alternative to run the country at present. This is an
important issue that is not accepted by the people and political parties in Western societies in this
world.27
Thus, this new period is generally very different in many respects from the previous period after
the Cold War and the new world order, and has been created and developed in some way in
protest of the past liberal order. In this period, the global claim of the mentioned countries,
according to the hierarchy of their protests, somehow objected to the new liberal order and did
not believe in it. In terms of the statements of its leader, Iran and its supporters in the Middle
East and North Korea are at the top of the list of disbelievers in the world liberal order. This
opposition can be seen in various ceremonies and even in the official statements of the Foreign
Ministry of these countries.
Belief is a phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.28 Examinations in
my past research on political culture have shown that the belief element is the foundation of
political culture and plays a central role in formulating foreign policy. Political belief may have
traces of religious beliefs or nationalism, but in practice it is fundamentally different from other
beliefs. This difference is that political beliefs are formed according to the current conditions of
the time and can be changed and negotiated, while religious and nationalist beliefs are not
subject to the specific conditions of the time and cannot be negotiated and changed and usually
governments and political parties do not role play it, but political belief can form new alliances
in different situations, which may sometimes contradict previous alliances.29 Thus, political
beliefs are rooted in the strategy of struggle to achieve specific political goals and to maintain the
status quo or to change the status quo. Resistance or Change it. Leaders with charisma and
27
That may be what President Trump wants? The truth lies in this satire that political culture in the United States does not allow
politicians to make such a change in the constitution.
28
Merriam-Webster
29
For example, Turkey's turn to Syria in connection with the purchase of air defense equipment and the purchase of Russian
S400 missiles
19
popular character among the people have a significant role play in resisting the change of the
existing political culture or changing it or political- culture transformation.30
This political belief is fundamentally different from the belief or affiliation of political parties or
sympathizers with a policy or a political group and even a religious belief. This may be a
combination of nationalist beliefs in the West with extraversion in practice and intertwined with
the personalities of the individuals participating in this political complex. However, like any
other system, there may be leaks in the body. But in my opinion, this is the strongest system in
loyalty to an ideal.
This is the destiny of human beings and this constant struggle will continue and we will enter
from one period to another. Although the problems of the previous period still remain, we will
face a newer problem. Complexities in international relations will increase. Is the Western world
following the example of the East? Or the East is laying the groundwork for the West's previous
occupation of its territory.
One of the important features of this new era is the impact of political culture on foreign policy
in international relations. Political culture is a set of behavioral intentions of leaders and citizens
towards politics that is embedded in a political system. Beliefs, symbols and values are
constituent elements in any political culture. Belief is the main root of conflict and power
struggle in achieving a specific political goal and maintaining the status quo or changing the
status quo. Belief can have a patriotic or religion basis or a political thought or a combination of
one or more elements. Political belief is necessary to ally with other countries to achieve
common political goals, in formulating this common foreign policy between two or more
countries, common factors in the political culture of these countries are effective and influential.
In this age of global claim, political culture can be the main basis of conflict and power struggle
in relations between countries in the world and as a result of instability in the international
system, or maintenance of international peace and security and growth and development and
economic prosperity. The "age of global claims" with the expansion of the political realm
30
Deng Xiaoping in China and Putin in Russia
20
quenches the thirst for power in domestic and foreign policy. This thirst for power has led to
political stubbornness and self-determination31 at home and political hatred abroad.
This political belief is fundamentally different from the belief or affiliation of political parties or
sympathizers with a policy or a political group and even a religious belief. This may be a
combination of nationalist beliefs in the West with extraversion in practice and intertwined with
the personalities of the individuals participating in this political complex. However, like any
other system, there may be leaks in the body. But in my opinion, this is the strongest system in
loyalty to an ideal. This ideal may be very different from the realities in society, Or even a
strategic political ambition, but it emphasizes its stability and invincibility in all stages. In the
strategic goals of this thinking, form or return to the empire, the grandeur of the past lies like the
dream of Putin and Erdogan, or the creation of a new Chinese-style empire based on the power
of production in the world or on a particular religion such as Iran. This is the main feature of the
global claims. Will this new age, like the previous ages, cultivate conflict within itself or not?
The answer to this question must be sought in future events.32 The common denominator of the
opponents of the Chinese, Russian, Iranian, and Turkish governments is their nationalism. The
Chinese nationalists seceded and formed an independent government in Taiwan.

Conclusions
The mission of the phenomenon of globalization in the free access of information to the public
with modern technology was completed in order to end globalization and impose its advantages
and disadvantages on the world system. Thus, the post-Cold War era is over and we are moving
from the age of liberal order to the age of global claims in the international system. The global
claims has been created and developed in some way in protest of the liberal order. Thus, the
bipolarity and isolation of American society at home, as well as rising tensions in US foreign
policy in the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region, are the result of the liberal order's
confrontation with the emergence of a new bloc of power, the global claim.
So the new multipolar world is made up of several blocks of power:
31
Self-determination, the process by which a group of people, usually with a certain degree of national consciousness, forms and
elects their own government.
32
Except for Chinese nationalists who formed their own government on the island of Taiwan after the Socialist government took
office. So far, I can say that the idea of global claims has its opponents in their countries. The main weakness of the opposition in
these four countries is the lack of charismatic leadership and a coherent ideology that can cover all issues of society.
21
1. The United States with its only remaining ally in Europe, Britain, and its Asian allies,
Japan and South Korea, and its strategic ally, Israel in the Middle East, and its other
less powerful allies, the Arab sheikhs in the region.
2. The European Union, including France and Germany, and the rest of the EU
3. China in Asia Pacific with its close ally North Korea and its new Middle East ally Iran
4. Russia in Europe and Central Asia with its former allies in the region and its new ally,
Turkey
These new blocs of power operate within their own set and make decisions in world politics
based on their own bloc, meaning that Europe will no longer be with the United States on all
fronts as it was in the past. The abstention to a recent Security Council resolution proposed by
the United States to extend the arms embargo on Iran is an example of Europe's lack of
cooperation with the United States. Or, a little earlier, the US do not cooperating with Europe in
the land use program and the use of non-fossil fuels, which the US, the current Trump
administration, withdrew from this program. Interestingly, the simultaneous veto of China and
Russia in this recent resolution is usually unprecedented for both countries. Meanwhile, Iran has
closer relations with Russia and China due to its conflict with the United States, and has
diplomatic relations with Europe. Thus, the recent blocs of China and Russia have shown that
they will stand together in the face of important global events. European bloc seeks friendly
political relations with other blocs involved and influential in world events. Thus, the global
claim bloc was formed and united to oppose the liberal order. This bloc includes China, Russia,
North Korea, Iran and Turkey.
US foreign policy, or US military strategy, will be to be present in the Asia-Pacific and Middle
East region, with China changing to previous US wartime calculations in the region, and this is
the biggest threat to the United States changing the balance of power in the region. In the postCold War era, US threats in the East Asian region were precisely on the Korean Peninsula, only
North Korea and Iran in the Middle East. Now, in new calculations, China has added to the
previous threats as a threat. The recent escalation of tensions in the Asia-Pacific region, and
especially in the Middle East, has been due to the emergence of new powers and Iran's closer
proximity to China in these two regions, so that the new US threat trajectory begins from North
22
Africa to the western Pacific. Therefore, the United States will not perceive a threat from the
European region and the threats in the Middle East and Asia Pacific region.
References
Brands, H. (2016). American Grand Strategy and the Liberal Order: Continuity, Change, and
Options for the Future. A RAND Project to Explore U.S. Strategy in a Changing World,
40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894216674953
Brooks & Ikenberry. (2013). Lean forward: In defense of American engagement. Foreign
Affairs, 92(1). Retrieved March 23, 2020
Carla Norrlof, William C. Wohlforth. (2019). Is US grand strategy self-defeating? Deep
engagement, military spending and sovereign debt. Conflict Management and Peace
science, 39(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894216674953
Inis L& Claude Jr. (1989). The Balance of Power Revisited. Review of International Studies,
15(2), 77-85.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2018). The end of liberal international order? International Affairs, 94(1), 23.
Kagan, R. (2018). The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled. In R. Kagan, The Jungle
Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled (pp. 196-198). published in Asian Affairs,
January 2020. doi:10.1080/03068374.2019.1663672
Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in World Political Economy.
New Jersey: Princeton Press, March 20, 2005. doi:9780691122489
Layne, C. ( 1997). From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing. International Security, 22(1), 86124. Retrieved January 23, 2020, from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539331
Mattis, J. (2018). Summary of the 2018 national defense strategy of the United States of America
: sharpening the American military's competitive edge. Department of Defense.
Washington, D. C Department of Defense, National Defense Strategy. Retrieved
Feburary 2, 2020
Mazarr, Michael J., Astrid Stuth Cevallos, Miranda Priebe, Andrew Radin, Kathleen Reedy,
Alexander D. Rothenberg, Julia A. Thompson, and Jordan Willcox, Measuring the Health
of the Liberal International Order. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2017. PP150151 https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1994.html.
23
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019). Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order.
International Security, 43(4).
Melko, M. (2018). Hegemony vs. Balance of Power Within and Between Civilizations in World.
Comparative Civilizations Review, 58, 75-89. Retrieved Feburary 3, 2020, from
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr
Owen, J. M. (2018). Liberalism and Its Alternatives, Again. International Studies Review, 20(2),
309-316. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2332-0761.1000203
Paul TV, Wirtz JJ, Fortmann M. (2004). Balance of power: theory and practice in the 21st
century. 485 Broadway, First Floor: Stanford University Press. Retrieved January 16,
2020, from books.google.com
Stein, A. A. (1993). The Domestic Bases of Grand Strategy. In A. Stein, & R. N. Richard
Rosecrance (Ed.). Ithca and Londona : Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Retrieved
March 1, 2020, from https://www.amazon.com/Domestic-Strategy-Cornell-StudiesWalt, S. M. (2018). US grand strategy after the Cold War: Can realism explain it? Should
realism guide it? . International Relations, 32(1), 3-22.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117817753272
William C. Wohlforth , Richard Little. (2007). Testing Balance-of-Power Theory in World
History. European Journal of International, 13(2), 155–185.
doi:10.1177/1354066107076951
24
View publication stats