Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1593171877

The Failed Pursuit of Unity in the Muslim World

Power dynamics in the Muslim world are shifting and splintering, with Saudi Arabia on the outside looking in.

Analysis | Middle East

The Muslim world is currently going through significant power shifts, and new players are competing to be the rightful leader of the Ummah (Muslim community). The Muslim world is gradually transitioning towards a multipolar system where power is diffused from Saudi Arabia as the key player, to Turkey. The transition is a result of Ankara's push to play a more significant role in the complex multidimensional Muslim world, whereas the Saudi-led system has failed to address issues of long-standing conflicts, Islamophobia, and the mounting outrage over the plight of Muslims in Xinjing and Kashmir.

Last month, leaders from 52 Muslim countries gathered in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia to form a new Muslim alliance with the top priority of addressing the challenge of Islamophobia. The inaugural conference was titled: "The Role of Development in Achieving National Security," with the critical objective of unifying the Muslim world and creating a platform for cooperation. However, the most influential Muslim state, Saudi Arabia, was not invited and kept out of the forum. King Salman, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques in Islam, and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman did not receive an invitation to the KL summit. Adding to this sensitive situation, two of the Kingdom's principal adversaries — Qatar and Iran — were on the guest list and participated in the summit.

The question is, why was Saudi Arabia not invited to the summit? The KL forum is an attempt to create a new power structure in the Muslim world, challenging the current power balance with Saudi Arabia as the hegemon. The new alliance is symptomatic of the ambitions of Turkey, and the apathy of Saudi Arabia manifested in the ineffectiveness of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Hence, the changing regional contests and the resurfacing of new power players are striving to transform the pre-established Saudi-led order exemplified by the OIC.

The architects of this new alliance are Malaysia’s Prime Minister Mahathir Muhammed in coordination with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Both leaders are striving to replace the existing power structure in the Muslim world with a platform that is not influenced by the oil-rich Gulf states. Meanwhile, in Riyadh, the KL summit is regarded as a threat to the Saudi-led OIC and has pressured key allies into not participating. Perhaps the new Islamic bloc supplants the OIC and, in turn, reduces Saudi Arabia's influence in the region.

The OIC, formed in 1969, was in response to the attack on the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. The organization is the second largest international body after the United Nations, comprised of fifty-seven states. The mission of the OIC is to protect the interests of Muslims around the world. However, the OIC has not been effective in making significant strides in improving relations between Muslim states. Instead, powerful states pushed their political agendas through the OIC platform.

The Deep Divisions in the Middle East

By snubbing Riyadh, the KL summit is doing the opposite of its mission; instead of creating unity, it further solidifies the deep political and ideological divisions between the major power players like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and Qatar. The Turkey-Malaysia bloc indicates the formation of new alliances resulting in a multipolar Muslim world – with power centers in Ankara, Riyadh, and Tehran. While Turkey, under Erdogan, has aimed to rejuvenate the glory of the Ottoman empire and aspired to replace the contemporary hegemon of the Muslim world — Saudi Arabia.

Following the failed coup of 2016, Turkey has adopted an aggressive foreign policy resulting in strategic reorientation from the West towards the Muslim world. Erdogan's distrust of NATO allies and his ambition of being the leader of the Muslim world is one of the primary reasons for the pivot. While Turkey established diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia in 1932, both remained disinterested in expanding ties due to Turkey's secular stance. Relations warmed for a short period after Erdogan's accession to power in 2002 but then took a sharp turn around 2009 as a consequence of Ankara's support for the advocates of political Islam and its backing of revolutions in the Middle East. More recently, the rift further intensified after the Jamal Khashoggi incident in Istanbul and the slow disclosure of the murder details by the Turkish government to put international pressure on Saudi Arabia and weaken its position in the Muslim world.

Currently, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are strategic rivals with positional and ideational dimensions. Each is competing for influence and prestige while maximizing their political and economic gains along with spreading their theocratical version of Islam. Many in the West ignore the ideological differences in the Muslim world and take a reductionist approach by focusing on the Shiite and Sunni divide between Saudi Arabia and Iran. However, theological divisions within Sunnis have dominated politics within the Muslim world for an extended period; with Wahabism/Salafism dominating Saudi Arabia while Erdogan's Turkey is seen as the staunch supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Additionally, in recent years, we see traditional alliances shifts away from Saudi Arabia based on ideological differences, with Qatar as the primary example of such a trend. Moreover, Turkey and Iran have been quick to grab Saudi allies and regional interests. As it was evident, after the Gulf Cooperation Council's (GCC) boycott of Qatar, Turkey sided with Doha and stood up to Saudi Arabia by providing security assistance and sending troops to Qatar. Iran was also quick to offer any assistance to Doha and provided access to Iranian airspace and shipping routes to circumvent the GCC blockade. Regional friction in the GCC has strengthened Turkey and Iran's position and, at the same time, reduced the Kingdom's influence.

For the time being, Saudi Arabia can count on Pakistan to stand by its side. However, Pakistan's central foreign policy dilemma in the Muslim world has been how to balance its alliance with Saudi Arabia while expanding its economic ties with Turkey, Iran, and Qatar. The exclusion of Saudi Arabia from the KL summit forced Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan to cancel his trip to Malaysia. Indeed, when it comes to taking sides, Islamabad has repeatedly aligned with Riyadh, a pattern that has continued for seven decades. However, the Kingdom has yet to reciprocate by taking a stand on the current Kashmir crisis. Pakistan's position of siding with Saudi Arabia has the potential of damaging its relationship with Turkey and Malaysia. With the absence of the two vital Muslim heavyweights, the summit lacks credibility.

The Multipolar Muslim World

The Muslim world is split. Given the deep-rooted ideological and political divisions between the key players, it is difficult to envision the new Islamic bloc creating harmony. Although the underlying logic behind the formulation of this summit is to reduce tensions and shift the focus toward development, that is not very easy when the inaugural summit is selective and not inclusive. The summit, in short, further demonstrates the discord and divisions that have afflicted the Muslim world.

Moreover, it is apparent that beneath the verbal façade is an emptiness that is similar to that of OIC. When it comes to religious and political persecution of Muslims, from the Uighur's predicament in Xinjiang to the Kashmiri struggle, most of the participants of the new alliance remain silent. They have all prioritized their economic relationship with China and India and steered clear of discussing issues that could bring forth Beijing or New Delhi's ire. Finally, the resurgence of Turkey as a significant power player with the ambition of taking over the pre-established order is pushing for a fundamental transformation of the geopolitics of the Muslim world and transforming it into a multipolar system.


Analysis | Middle East
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.