全球地缘政治格局正在发生深刻变化，传统大国对国际事务的掌控力正在衰退[1]。美国、俄罗斯和中国等强权国家面临日益复杂的挑战，非国家行为体、技术变革和资源竞争等多重因素正在重塑国际秩序[1]。
中东和欧洲地区的冲突案例充分反映了这一趋势。特朗普政府宣布哈马斯"完全解除武装"的承诺缺乏实际协议支持，引发国际社会对其可信度的质疑[1]。在核能合作上，特朗普先后宣布与沙特阿拉伯达成30年核电协议，随后因要求沙特签署《亚伯拉罕协议》而实质上搁置该协议[1]。澳大利亚前保障与不扩散办公室主任约翰·卡尔森指出该核协议损害了非扩散标准[1]。
乌克兰冲突展现出大国对地区局势的有限控制力。乌克兰直接攻击伊朗在里海的船舶，将伊朗与乌克兰冲突联系起来[1]。俄罗斯因乌克兰破坏其能源基础设施而被迫从印度进口石油[1]。与此同时，北约战机应对了俄罗斯导弹进入波兰领空事件[1]。
伊朗的动向表明中东国家正在采取更具战略性的自主立场。伊朗新一代领导层将"革命与治国分离"，采取实用主义和战略耐心的政策方向[1]。伊朗支持的什叶派政党在伊拉克选举中表现良好[1]。
The traditional dominance of major powers in international relations is waning, as conflicts across multiple regions reveal the limits of their influence and the complexity of modern geopolitics [1]. Regional actors, non-state groups, and technological shifts are reshaping outcomes in ways that established powers can no longer fully control [1].
Recent developments illustrate this fragmentation. President Trump announced Hamas would be "completely disarmed," but the statement lacks supporting agreements, raising questions about its credibility [1]. Meanwhile, Russia has turned to importing oil from India after Ukraine damaged its energy infrastructure, demonstrating how smaller adversaries can impose significant costs [1]. Ukraine has directly attacked Iranian vessels in the Caspian Sea, effectively drawing Iran into the conflict [1]. In another incident, NATO fighter jets responded after Russian missiles entered Polish airspace [1]. The Trump administration initially announced a 30-year nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, only to effectively shelve it when the kingdom resisted demands to sign the Abraham Accords [1]. John Carlson, Australia's former head of security and non-proliferation, argued that the nuclear deal undermined non-proliferation standards [1].
Iran's new leadership has adopted a more pragmatic approach, separating "revolution from governance" and pursuing strategic patience and realism [1]. This shift appears reflected in the strong performance of Shia political parties backed by Iran in Iraq's elections held in November 2025 [1]. These trends suggest that the international order is increasingly shaped by localized interests and tactical calculations rather than directives from Washington, Moscow, or Beijing [1].