The West wants a new order, but has no plan for one

As the Montreux Convention comes under pressure and Hormuz grows more unstable, military power alone is proving unable to sustain order Two recent developments, one in the Black Sea and the other in the Persian Gulf, illustrate how rapidly the international order is unravelling. They also reveal something else: while Western powers are increasingly willing to discard the old rules, they are proving incapable of replacing them with a stable new order. A few days ago, the European Union member states announced plans to establish a maritime security center in either Bulgaria or Romania. On paper, the initiative has been presented as enhancing regional security, but in practice, it points towards the gradual militarization of the Black Sea and the erosion of the Montreux Convention, the 1936 agreement that has limited the presence of non-Black Sea naval powers in the region for nearly 90 years. At almost the same time, the confrontation between Iran and the United States has entered a new phase. Tehran has reinstated its control over the Strait of Hormuz following renewed hostilities, and Washington has responded by announcing a naval blockade of the Islamic Republic. Once again, one of the world’s most important trade routes is being held hostage to geopolitical confrontation. These two cases may appear unrelated, yet, in reality, they reflect the same trend in the collapse of long-established international arrangements, without any credible replacement. As Western European governments prepare for what they increasingly describe as a long-term confrontation with Russia, they are showing little interest in preserving the security architecture inherited from the twentieth century. The Montreux Convention is becoming another casualty of this shift. Ankara, despite enjoying special rights under the convention, is unlikely to resist. As a NATO member, Türkiye ultimately remains bound by alliance solidarity, regardless of its diplomatic balancing.

Moreover, a larger Western military presence in the Black Sea also serves Turkish interests by strengthening deterrence against Russia. Read more Why BRICS should resist becoming a Western-style bloc Another cornerstone of the post-war international system may therefore soon become little more than a historical document, and this fits neatly with the increasingly fashionable claim that international law is giving way to the law of the strong. But reality is more complicated than that slogan suggests, and the situation in the Persian Gulf demonstrates why. The US and Israeli military operation against Iran earlier this year shattered a regional balance that, while imperfect, had maintained relative stability for decades. The Persian Gulf had become one of the world’s most predictable regions for energy exports, but, today, shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is plagued by constant uncertainty, as Washington and Tehran compete to impose rival systems of control and neither side appears capable of achieving a lasting victory. The United States undoubtedly possesses sufficient military power to dominate the region temporarily and it can deploy carrier strike groups, conduct air operations and suppress Iranian capabilities when necessary. But military superiority alone doesn’t create political order and while destroying an opponent’s ability to challenge you is one thing, establishing a durable system of rules that others accept is something entirely different. History offers a consistent lesson in how stable international orders require more than overwhelming force. Read more Iran and the US are already fighting their next war First, they require reliable allies willing and able to uphold the rules themselves and every durable political order, whether domestic or international, rests on rules, so the real question is never whether rules exist, but who writes them and who benefits from them. Secon