The Evolution of the World Order and the Strategies of Middle Powers: A Reflection on Saudi Arabia’s New Foreign Policy

Introduction
The global landscape of international relations is experiencing a significant transformation, characterized by the emergence of new power structures, shifting alliances, and the decline of traditional hegemonies. These changes intensify the inherent uncertainties of international politics and foster new anxieties and strategic recalibrations among states worldwide. However, amidst this volatility, opportunities are also unfolding—particularly for middle powers. Positioned between great powers and lesser states, these nations often possess the necessary economic resources, diplomatic capabilities, and regional influence to shape global outcomes, even if they lack the capacity to unilaterally determine them.
      Middle power leaders now face a broader spectrum of choices as they navigate this fluid environment. Their strategic decisions— whether to align with dominant powers, hedge among competitors, or to pursue independent initiatives— will be influenced by their perceptions of global developments, their national interests, and their willingness to take calculated risks. Each option carries significant implications for their security, economic prosperity, and geopolitical relevance. Thus, analyzing the strategic alternatives available to middle powers during this transitional period is a vital task.
     This article aims to contribute to this discussion by addressing a key question: What strategic options are available to middle powers in a transforming global order, and which among them is the most effective? To answer this, the study examines a range of foreign policy strategies, including: (1) balance of power, (2) balance of threat, (3) soft balancing, (4) responsibility transfer, (5) followership, and (6) hedging. After evaluating the advantages and limitations of each, the article contends that hedging emerges as the most advantageous approach. This strategy allows middle powers to manage uncertainty, reduce risks, and retain strategic flexibility—providing them with the time needed to adapt to ongoing shifts in the global system. Importantly, the analysis emphasizes that hedging is not a passive fallback but a proactive strategy that enables middle powers to optimize their foreign policy objectives in an increasingly multipolar world.
 
Methodology
This research employs a descriptive-analytical methodology, suitable for both theoretical development and applied case analysis. It begins by examining the concept of the "middle power" within international relations theory, exploring how such states have traditionally situated themselves within the global system. Drawing on both classical and contemporary sources, the study outlines the main strategies that middle powers have historically employed to navigate the complexities of international politics.
      Building on this theoretical framework, the research then identifies the core features and operational mechanisms of six key foreign policy strategies. These strategies are not viewed as mutually exclusive categories but rather as points along a spectrum, with states positioning themselves differently depending on specific contexts and evolving international conditions. The study emphasizes a detailed focus on strategic hedging, elaborating on its theoretical foundations and practical applications—particularly for middle powers facing external pressures and internal transformations.
      To ground the analysis in real-world phenomena, the study applies the framework of strategic hedging to the case of Saudi Arabia, a country that has recently undergone a significant recalibration of its foreign policy. This case is chosen for its geopolitical relevance and its illustrative value as a middle power actively navigating the uncertainties of a changing global order. Saudi Arabia’s evolving approach—characterized by balancing traditional alliances, such as with the United States, and forging new ties with rising powers like China and Russia—serves as a compelling example of hedging in practice. By examining Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy choices through the lens of the hedging strategy, the study aims to assess its effectiveness and explore its broader relevance for other middle powers operating under similar conditions.
 
Results and Discussion
The ongoing transformation of the international system is characterized by several key trends: the relative decline of U.S. unipolarity, the assertive rise of China, the resurgence of regional powers, and the weakening of multilateral institutions. Collectively, these developments have heightened overall uncertainty in international relations. For middle powers, this environment presents both challenges and opportunities: increased vulnerabilities, such as exposure to external shocks, diminished strategic predictability, and mounting pressure from competing great powers; alongside new prospects for strategic maneuvering, diplomatic innovation, and greater autonomy on the world stage.
To navigate this complex environment effectively, middle powers must critically evaluate their foreign policy strategies. Traditional approaches, like the balance of power strategy, involve aligning with one bloc to counter perceived threats. While offering short-term security, this can constrain long-term autonomy and provoke retaliation from rival powers. Similarly, the balance of threat strategy—aligning against states seen as the greatest dangers—may limit flexibility and create over-dependence on specific alliance networks.
     Soft balancing, which employs non-military tools such as institutional engagement, diplomatic coalitions, and economic statecraft, provides a more nuanced alternative. However, it may lack the immediacy and decisiveness required during crises. Strategies like responsibility transfer or followership—deferment to a dominant power or shifting burdens to others—risk undermining a state's credibility and agency in the international arena.
      In contrast, the hedging strategy offers a flexible, hybrid approach. It enables middle powers to maintain relationships with established hegemons while simultaneously engaging with emerging powers. This dual-engagement approach functions as strategic insurance: if one alignment becomes less viable or more costly, alternatives remain. Hedging reduces the risk of entrapment in great power conflicts and preserves the flexibility needed to recalibrate foreign policy in response to changing circumstances.
      The case of Saudi Arabia exemplifies this hedging approach. In recent years, Saudi foreign policy has experienced a notable shift under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. While preserving strong security and economic ties with the United States, Saudi Arabia has intensified its engagement with China—particularly in energy, investment, and infrastructure—and has sought cooperative initiatives with Russia, including participation within OPEC+. Meanwhile, it has also worked to reduce its reliance on U.S. security guarantees through regional normalization agreements and an emphasis on developing its own defense capabilities.
      This behavior aligns with the logic of strategic hedging. Saudi leadership is consciously diversifying international partnerships, balancing risks, and maintaining strategic flexibility. Instead of choosing between alignment and autonomy, East and West, Saudi Arabia is pursuing a strategy that keeps multiple options open—aiming to manage uncertainty more effectively and strengthen its position as an influential actor within the evolving global order.
 
Conclusion
Based on both the theoretical analysis and empirical examination of Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy evolution, this study concludes that strategic hedging constitutes the most optimal strategy for middle powers navigating the current era of global transition. Unlike rigid alliances or reactive balancing approaches, hedging allows middle powers to adopt a more flexible, multi-dimensional foreign policy. It provides a buffer against systemic shocks, enhances bargaining power, and creates space for long-term planning and capacity-building.
By engaging simultaneously with both established and emerging powers, middle powers can avoid premature commitments while preserving the benefits of strategic engagement. This approach better equips them to withstand geopolitical turbulence, protect their national interests, and even expand their influence in global affairs. Importantly, strategic hedging should not be viewed as a sign of indecision or weakness; rather, it is a deliberate, forward-looking strategy designed to maximize opportunities and mitigate risks.
      In conclusion, the ongoing transformation of the global order—although marked by uncertainty—also offers a strategic window of opportunity. Middle powers that adopt the logic of hedging can not only survive this turbulent period but also play an active role in shaping the future contours of the international system. As exemplified by Saudi Arabia’s case, strategic hedging is not merely a theoretical concept but a practical and effective policy approach for navigating the complex geopolitics of the 21st century.