This article confronts the question, Is Thomas Hobbes still relevant to the study of international relations? Some might argue he never was, as his depiction of anarchy involves relations among individuals, not nations, in a state of nature. Other critics point to the changing nature of international relations (i.e., a diminution of possibilities for large-scale conflict because of the costs of war and the growing web of interdependence). For these scholars Hobbes’ depiction of anarchy is less relevant as a means of understanding international relations in the modern age. Most scholars, however, firmly believe that Hobbes’ discussion of the state of nature continues to ring true as a metaphor for relations among sovereign states without an overarching power that can guarantee their safety (i.e., there is no 911 in international politics). In this latter respect, Thomas Hobbes is regarded as a major intellectual precursor of realist theory, and realism is still the dominant paradigm in the study of international relations today. But even realists would not deny the fact that international politics today is pervaded not only by possibilities for conflict, but by many possibilities for cooperation. And in this respect, they might concede to the possibility that Hobbes is not the perfect metaphor for international relations. Both these arguments are misguided. They fundamentally assume that Hobbes’ depiction of anarchy is not a contested subject, i.e., that we all agree on the Hobbes’ interpretation of anarchy as a place void of any possibilities for cooperation. If this were true, then indeed there would be strong disagreement as to whether Hobbes is relevant to the study of international relations in the modern era. Realists would embrace the salience of a world without a 911and underscore the relevance of the famous political thinker, while neoliberals and constructivists would challenge his relevance because of their emphasis on the pervasiveness of norms and institutions that create extensive possibilities for cooperation in modern world politics. Both are correct and incorrect, and both their beliefs leave room for a common agreement on one proposition: that Hobbes the cosmopolitan thinker (not Hobbes the realist) is infinitely relevant for the study of international politics today. This is because anarchy itself, in Hobbes’ own interpretation, offers possibilities for both conflict and cooperation in ways that embrace the main tenets of the three main paradigms of international relations theory: realism, neoliberailsm and constructivism. Indeed, a careful textual analysis of the tale of the fool in Chapter 15 of the Leviathan demonstrates that Hobbes’ vision of anarchy embraces ample opportunities for cooperation (covenants) in a Hobbesian state of nature (i.e., without a Leviathan to impose order). The precise Hobbesian logic evident in this tale, in fact, reflects both strong neoliberal and constructivist elements in what many would consider a least-likely place: in Hobbes’ vision of anarchy. So while Hobbes has been hailed as the first early modern realist, he could also be cited as the first early modern neoliberal and constructivist. In this respect, Hobbes’ own synthesis of elements of realism, constructivism and neoliberalism holds much promise for inspiring a new and more sophisticated vision of international relations: cosmopolitik. It is this cosmopolitan Hobbes that is infinitely relevant to the study of international relations in what is generally agreed to be a cosmopolitan world (i.e., a world of both conflict and cooperation).