In a world governed by complex networks of economic interests, military alliances, and media balances, political decision-making is no longer a purely domestic matter as it once was. Today, a state operates within a broad international order that sometimes pressures it and at other times accommodates it, making the independence of political decision-making one of the most controversial concepts in contemporary international relations.

The independence of decision-making does not mean isolation or cutting off relations with the world. Instead, it means a state’s ability to determine its domestic and foreign policies according to its own vision and interests, not according to direct or indirect foreign dictates. This holds true regardless of whether the state holds a particular ideological stance or not. It charts its foreign policy without subordination to a single international bloc, makes economic decisions despite global financial pressures, and preserves a distinct political and cultural identity.

However, this independence always raises a fundamental question: can it be achieved without a cost?

The contemporary world order relies heavily on economic and institutional interconnections, and when a state chooses a different path, it is sometimes interpreted as a challenge to the existing balance of power.

Of course, for major powers especially in the case of the United States, which finds itself uniquely influential, any fully independent political model can raise concerns, if it has the ability to exert influence beyond its borders, or offer an intellectual or strategic alternative to other states. For this reason, the conflict often takes an indirect form, manifesting as sanctions or diplomatic pressure rather than open military confrontation.

The independence of decision-making is not merely a political declaration, but a long-term project that requires domestic popular support, and the ability to build multiple relationships to mitigate isolation. Absolute independence in an interconnected world can become a burden, if not accompanied by diplomatic flexibility, while complete subordination robs a state of its ability to protect its own interests. Since the world has become economically, militarily, and media-wise interconnected, a state may be politically independent yet still tied to global markets, technology, or military alliances.

The Question: Why Don’t States Rebel Against the International Order?

Full-scale rebellion practically means withdrawing from the rules of global trade, rejecting international institutions, and facing near-total banking isolation. This leads to severe inflation, difficulties in importing technology, medicine, and certain foods, and immense domestic economic pressure. Even states that attempt to assert a strong sovereign rhetoric often maintain channels of engagement with the international system to avoid economic collapse.

And for states to be able to take such a bold decision, they must possess a self-sufficient economy, advanced technological bases with domestic production, long-term domestic acceptance to adapt to a state of blockade, access to networks of alliances or expansions that do not rely on a single actor, and an ideology opposed to the existing international order that has the appeal of its structure, breadth, and justice highlighting from the very first moment the failures of the current international order.

And were it not for the betrayal of the rulers of Muslims, there would be many states capable of political independence. The lands of Muslims possess genuine potential: if they were able to adopt the Islamic ideology as their guiding system, and completely sever their relations with the West and its order, political independence would inevitably follow. We mention two examples merely as illustration:

Turkey: It possesses what could enable it to lead the world if it embraced the Islamic ideology, challenged the United States, and rallied Muslims around it. In its early days, it could become the leader of the Islamic Ummah and a prominent power among the world’s nations. Yet the major obstacle is that these authoritarian regimes, which exploit their peoples to serve the West and its schemes, are traitorous and lack true independence.

Iran: It has long been under siege and has paid the price without achieving political independence. If the Muslim Iranian people were to overthrow this treacherous regime, which outwardly displays strength but hides betrayal and weakness, America would not have been able to send its fleets in. Despite its hostility, Iran effectively safeguards these warships. It lacks the decisive power to strike the U.S. because it is governed by a traitorous leadership.

However, if the Muslim people were to rise, shake off the dust from their sound ‘Aqeedah (creed), return to the method of the Prophethood, overthrow this regime, and adopt the Islamic ideology, we would see how America would have to reconsider its calculations and withdraw its fleets not merely out of fear, but because it would no longer dominate the decisions of the new state. It would find itself engaged in a losing struggle, even if it takes a long time. Sadly, this is the reality of rulers of Muslims today: no one truly possesses decision-making power or sovereignty.

And no one can take this step except the Islamic State, because it embodies a divinely revealed ideology that safeguards the independence of decision-making, ensuring that such decisions are made from its own perspective that of Islam. All Muslims within the countries of Muslims are ready to sacrifice to preserve this state whenever Allah (swt) wills its emergence. It is the only entity that opposes the international order, and indeed the only one capable of exposing the system’s ugliness: by spreading justice and mercy befitting humanity, restoring rights to their owners, breaking monopolies, and expanding rapidly in all directions. Its resources, expertise, lands, and people are sufficient to endure the initial phase.

And of course, for Allah (swt) to grant the emergence of this state, it must have its men those who have embraced its ideology, worked to implement it among themselves, and built their bonds upon it. They must have prepared everything that this mission requires; Allah willing, they are ready, working with all their strength to seize the moment and revive the Islamic way of life.

The members of Hizb ut Tahrir pray by night and by day, and they are most capable of steering the Islamic ship so that it regains its international standing, governs the world according to the command of Allah (swt), and assumes leadership in global affairs, Allah willing. Then the glad tidings of the Messenger (saw) will be fulfilled,

«ثُمَّ تَكُونُ خِلَافَةً عَلَى مِنْهَاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ»

“Then there will be a Khilafah (Caliphate) upon the Method of the Prophethood.”