
Non-alignment
Cold War doctrine of refusing major-power alignment, revived as states navigate the Iran conflict.
Last refreshed: 30 March 2026
Can any state stay truly neutral when both sides levy economic penalties?
Timeline for Non-alignment
Cited by five countries negotiating bilateral Hormuz deals with Tehran
Iran Conflict 2026: Five nations queue for Hormuz tollAsserted by Sri Lanka to refuse US request for armed combat aircraft
Iran Conflict 2026: Sri Lanka blocked US anti-ship jetsWhat is non-alignment?
Which countries are non-aligned in the Iran conflict?
What is the difference between non-alignment and neutrality?
Background
Non-alignment is a Foreign Policy doctrine holding that states should refuse formal military or political alliance with any major power bloc. Originating at the 1955 Bandung Conference, it was codified through the Non-Aligned Movement founded in 1961 by Yugoslavia under Tito, alongside Egypt, India under Nehru, and Indonesia. The doctrine gave newly decolonised states a framework for asserting sovereignty during the Cold War without choosing between Washington and Moscow.
The concept has regained operational relevance during the Iran conflict. Sri Lanka denied a US request to base combat aircraft at Mattala Rajapaksa airport while simultaneously refusing Iran naval access, a textbook non-aligned refusal to facilitate either belligerent . Separately, India, Pakistan, Malaysia, and China entered bilateral transit negotiations with Tehran, splitting global shipping into aligned and non-aligned tiers .
The tension Non-alignment embodies is whether principled neutrality survives when major powers demand binary loyalty. The Strait of Hormuz toll system penalises states that refuse to pay Tehran for passage, while US secondary sanctions threaten states that do. Countries invoking the doctrine face not an ideological choice but a practical squeeze: economic coercion from both sides simultaneously.