The clash of civilisations has finally begun?

For decades, global politics was understood through a stark binary of the “free world” versus the “axis of evil”. During the Cold War, this framing cast liberal democracies as guardians of a rules-based international order while communist states stood as ideological adversaries. After 9/11, Washington revived this language to rally allies against terrorism and authoritarianism.

This worldview provided moral clarity and political cohesion. But today, both the so-called “free world” and the “axis of evil” have faded into history. The institutions, norms and assumptions built around this binary no longer explain the complexities of global power.

In their place, a civilisational world order is emerging — one in which states increasingly define themselves not as modern nation-states, but as carriers and protectors of ancient civilisations. They are bound by culture, religion, and history rather than by universal principles of law or governance.

When President George W. Bush coined the term “axis of evil” in 2002, he addressed a world that still believed in universal norms. Countries such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea were branded pariahs not because they threatened US security, but because they violated the rules of a supposedly shared international system.

Two decades later, many of these same states — including the US itself — have recast their identities. They no longer present themselves simply as rogue actors or liberal democracies. Instead, they claim to represent civilisational powers, defending their unique cultures, religions and historical legacies. China, Russia, Iran and others now frame foreign policy in explicitly civilisational terms.

The great irony is that the US has now joined this trend. Once the global champion of universal ideals, Washington increasingly interprets politics through a civilisational lens. At home, US politics has become deeply infused with religious rhetoric, as Christian nationalist ideas permeate the administration, legislature and even the judiciary. Debates over diversity, immigration and identity are no longer framed as routine policy disputes but as existential struggles over the nation’s very soul. The backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives epitomises this inward‐turning majoritarianism.

Abroad, US actions reveal a similar shift. Washington’s unconditional support for Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians is framed not through the lens of international law or humanitarian concern, but as a defence of “Western civilisation”. Its promotion of racist, populist and exclusionary politics in Europe, coupled with criticism of the EU’s immigration policies and even sanctions on international institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), underscores how America has eroded the very nation-state norms it once built. This erosion has created space for rival civilisational powers to justify their agendas on their own terms, unrestrained by the international laws and rules that once governed global behaviour.

Among these emerging civilisational actors, Israel has been particularly adept at navigating the transition, skillfully advancing its interests within shifting global power dynamics. Since its founding, Israel’s expansion and occupation have often violated international laws, but these violations were masked by Cold War geopolitics.

With the Cold War over, Israel strategically rebranded itself. No longer merely a Western geopolitical outpost nominally bound by international laws and rules, it has positioned itself as a civilisational frontier — a self-proclaimed defender of the so-called Judeo-Christian West — while simultaneously seeking to evade the constraints of international law. 

By invoking narratives reminiscent of Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations thesis, Israel has reframed its territorial ambitions and military actions — not as matters of legal dispute, but as existential struggles between civilisations.

Through extensive lobbying and influence campaigns, Israel has materialised the clash of civilisations and has guided US foreign policy, persuading Washington to see Middle Eastern conflicts through this civilisational lens. This has created a powerful feedback loop: Israel’s framing pulls the US further into civilisational politics, while American religious-political narratives in turn reinforce Israel’s emerging worldview.

The result is a profound transformation of global politics. The old “free world” versus “axis of evil” paradigm is dead. In its place is a multipolar landscape of competing civilisations — China, India, Russia, Iran, Israel and even the US — each advancing its own vision of civilisational world order. This shift is deeply destabilising.

Civilisational conflicts differ fundamentally from nation-state disputes. They are existential rather than negotiable. When framed as battles for the survival of entire ways of life, compromise becomes impossible and diplomacy loses its power.

The most alarming example today is Washington’s unwavering support for Israel’s actions in Gaza — actions that many in the international community regard as genocidal. Such support not only violates international laws and norms but also undermines US national interests, prioritising a vision of “Making Israel Great Again” over the well-being of Americans and global stability, while advancing a civilisational approach to international relations.

As the US abandons universalist frameworks, it is dismantling the very scaffolding of the rules-based order it once built. Into this vacuum step other civilisational powers, each seeking to impose its own vision of history and destiny.

The 20th century was defined by the rise and fall of nation-states. Out of that era emerged the US-led liberal order, built on universal norms and international institutions designed to prevent another world war. Today, however, that order is unravelling — undermined both by America’s own actions and by the ambitions of rising and rival civilisational states, especially along their perceived geographic and cultural frontiers.

The challenge ahead is not merely for any particular “civilisational core” to expand and dominate its surrounding civilisational margins, but more importantly, to prevent a descent into civilisational warfare — a world in which entire cultures are cast as enemies and conflicts become perpetual.

If this paradigm takes hold, diplomacy will no longer be about compromise or negotiation, but about sheer survival. The stakes could not be higher: if current trends persist, the 21st century may be remembered not for the triumph of globalisation, but for the rise of civilisations — and the catastrophic wars they unleash, whether along civilisational frontiers or between core civilisations themselves.

Related: Can China lead global civilisation? | How Israel-Hamas war has revived debate on the clash of civilisations