Gabriel G. Tabarani
As the world turns the page on 2025, it does so without the comfort of familiar assumptions. The international system that once rested on predictable alliances, shared norms, and gradual change has given way to something far more fluid and unsettled. The year ahead is unlikely to deliver clarity or closure. Instead, 2026 will test how states, societies, and institutions adapt to a world in which power is more openly contested and certainty is increasingly scarce.
One defining feature of the coming year will be the continued centrality of the United States in global affairs—but not as a stabilizing anchor. Rather, its role is increasingly that of a disruptive variable, forcing others to recalibrate strategies and expectations. Allies and partners may continue to accommodate this reality out of necessity, but accommodation should not be mistaken for confidence. Across regions, governments are quietly preparing for a future in which reliance on a single external guarantor carries growing risks.
Nowhere is this recalibration more visible than in Europe and the Middle East, two regions long shaped by external security guarantees. In Europe, the realization that strategic autonomy is no longer optional is sinking in unevenly. Defense spending is rising, coordination is improving, and traditional assumptions about leadership within the continent are being reassessed. Yet the deeper challenge remains psychological: letting go of a world in which security felt permanent and outsourced.
In the Middle East, the adjustment is sharper and more volatile. The region enters 2026 amid unresolved conflicts, fragile ceasefires, and intensifying rivalries. What is striking is not merely the persistence of instability, but the changing behavior of regional actors. States are increasingly acting with strategic self-confidence, hedging between global powers, and pursuing narrow national interests rather than aligning rigidly with any single bloc. External powers still matter, but their ability to dictate outcomes has diminished. The Middle East is no longer just a theater for global competition; it is an arena where local agency increasingly shapes the rules of engagement.
This shift carries risks. As external deterrence becomes less reliable, regional rivalries may harden, and conflict management may grow more transactional. At the same time, it opens space for regional diplomacy untethered from great-power agendas. In 2026, the Middle East will likely oscillate between these two paths—one toward fragmentation, the other toward cautious, interest-based stabilization—without fully committing to either.
Beyond these regions, the erosion of confidence in international norms will continue to reshape global behavior. Multilateral institutions remain active, but their authority is increasingly selective. Rules are invoked when convenient and ignored when costly. Middle powers, particularly in Asia, Africa, and the Gulf, are responding not by withdrawing from the system, but by navigating it pragmatically. Flexibility, rather than alignment, is becoming the dominant strategy.
Individuals, too, will play a subtle but revealing role in 2026. Patterns of migration, education, investment, and tourism offer insight into the durability of soft power. For decades, certain countries benefited from a gravitational pull that transcended politics. Whether that pull endures will depend less on rhetoric and more on lived experience—how welcoming societies feel, how predictable systems remain, and how opportunity is perceived. A decline in these flows would signal a deeper shift than any policy announcement.
In the Western Hemisphere, the coming year may mark a turning point in attitudes toward external influence. Heavy-handed engagement from outside powers has fueled resentment, even where security and economic challenges are acute. In 2026, political leaders and civil society across Latin America and the Caribbean are likely to push back more openly against being treated as instruments in broader geopolitical games. This does not imply disengagement from the world, but a demand for relationships grounded in respect rather than leverage.
Economic uncertainty will further complicate the global picture. Trade agreements once thought settled may come under renewed strain, not because of structural necessity, but because uncertainty itself has become a bargaining tool. Businesses and governments alike are learning to operate in an environment where unpredictability is permanent. Resilience—diversification, redundancy, and adaptability—will matter more than efficiency alone.
The calendar of 2026 will be filled with symbolic moments: global summits, major sporting events, national anniversaries. These occasions will project images of unity and continuity. Yet symbolism cannot substitute for strategy. The real question is whether these platforms will be used to rebuild trust and cooperation or merely to amplify competing narratives. Public diplomacy will be abundant; genuine coordination far rarer.
Domestic politics within major powers will also reverberate globally. Elections and internal political struggles will shape foreign policy not only through outcomes, but through the signals they send about institutional strength and social cohesion. Even when leadership remains unchanged, prolonged polarization can weaken credibility abroad. In 2026, the world will be watching not just who governs, but how governance itself holds up under pressure.
Taken together, these dynamics suggest that 2026 will not be a year of resolution. It will be a year of exposure—revealing which assumptions still hold and which no longer do. The international system is not collapsing, but it is mutating. Stability, where it exists, will be increasingly local, conditional, and negotiated rather than universal and guaranteed.
The danger lies in nostalgia—the hope that the old order might simply return. The opportunity lies in adaptation. Actors that acknowledge new realities, invest in resilience, and engage pragmatically rather than sentimentally will be better positioned to shape outcomes rather than merely endure them. As 2026 unfolds, the most important lesson may be this: the future will not be restored. It will be contested, managed, and redefined—region by region—in real time.
This article was originally published in Arabic on the Asswak Al-Arab website
