The Fragmentation of the Muslim World and the Politics of Strategic Cooperation: From Ideological Solidarity to National Interest

Abstract

Abstract

The political idea of a unified Muslim world rests on a powerful proposition: shared Islamic identity can provide a basis for political solidarity, collective security, economic cooperation, and diplomatic coordination. Yet contemporary Muslim-majority states display substantial divergence in security preferences, alliance choices, economic strategies, and regional priorities. This article examines why common Islamic identity has not produced sustained strategic unity and under what conditions Muslim states nevertheless cooperate. Drawing on neorealism, constructivism, and regionalism, it argues that Islamic solidarity has not disappeared; rather, it has been transformed from an objective of political unity into a strategic resource selectively activated when compatible with national interests. The study employs qualitative comparative analysis and structured comparison of four forms of cooperation: the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Saudi-Iran strategic accommodation, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and the Developing-8 (D-8). The analysis shows that universal institutions are constrained by divergent threat perceptions and sovereignty concerns, while narrower and functional arrangements are more capable of producing actionable cooperation. Contemporary Muslim regionalism is therefore best understood as strategic cooperation without comprehensive strategic unity. Solidarity supplies normative legitimacy; national interest determines the scope of cooperation; and institutional design determines its durability.