This essay begins with a methodological discussion about the fundamental outlines of the post-1989 international system. Influential scholars have defined the new system according to traditional variables, dependent upon the polarities scheme inherited from Cold War times and on realist methodological premises. The emergence of a "new phase" of the globalization process showed that to consider state power as a structural axis of the system - in which the United States play a prominent role - is misleading and blurs the "real" configuration of power in this new system. The invasion of Irak by U. S. forces in march 2003 consisted in a privileged laboratory to determine this "real" configuration of power. Following the persistence of a pattern of power and language tone characteristic of the Cold War times (e. g., "who is not with us is in favor of terrorism"), the absence of a competitor or state competitors that could rival American power made the invasion more than a violation of principles of Law and Ethics. It can also be considered misleading and counterproductive in the light of American interests themselves, given its misperceptions and misconceptions of the new international realities. Two further components of this scenario are probed deeper in the essay: a) the redundancy and, to a certain extent, uselessness of military weapons for the promotion of the national interest; and b) the formation of a "new bipolarism", which opposes United States republican foreign policy and the rising bloc of global civil society. This bloc has amassed impressive power resources, which make it the focus of an emergent international system, characterized by a new and atypical modality of conflict. The many empirical evidences gathered in the essay will hopefully sustain this argument.
International System; Bipolarism; United States; Global Civil Society