The United States is not approaching collapse because it lacks power. It is approaching collapse because it has too often mistaken power for wisdom. Its armed forces remain unmatched in reach, its financial system remains central to global commerce, and its technology sector continues to shape the future. Yet these advantages can conceal a more dangerous condition: the erosion of judgment.
A superpower begins to decay when it treats coercion as strategy, military reach as political authority, and exemption from rules as evidence of strength. The result is not immediate collapse, but a cumulative weakening of legitimacy, fiscal discipline, institutional trust, and strategic clarity.
The war on Iran is the latest expression of this disorder. Washington and Israel possess overwhelming conventional capabilities, and early assessments show that Iran has suffered serious military damage. Nevertheless, the central question is not whether the United States can strike Iran; it is whether violence can produce a stable political outcome.
The conflict has already shifted from a narrow military campaign into a test of endurance, maritime pressure, domestic patience, and bargaining leverage. Iran’s ability to threaten the Strait of Hormuz demonstrates the difference between battlefield superiority and strategic control. A weaker state need not defeat a superpower outright. It need only raise the cost of victory beyond what that superpower’s public, economy, and allies are willing to bear.
This is the recurring failure of American interventionism. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and now Iran belong to a broader tradition in which Washington enters conflicts with maximal confidence and exits them with diminished credibility. The pattern is not simply a military error. It is a conceptual error: the assumption that destroying capacity is equivalent to creating order. The post-9/11 wars revealed how quickly punitive power becomes a strategic burden. Brown University’s Costs of War project has documented the enormous human, fiscal, and social consequences of that era. Iran risks extending the same logic into a still more dangerous regional environment.
The deeper problem is imperial overstretch. Paul Kennedy’s classic argument was not that great powers fall because they become poor, but because they allow external commitments to exceed the economic and political base that sustains them. That diagnosis remains relevant. The United States carries global military obligations, subsidizes allies, maintains vast overseas deployments, and finances repeated wars while its own fiscal position deteriorates. The Congressional Budget Office projects large deficits and rising public debt through 2036, with interest costs absorbing an expanding share of national resources. A republic cannot indefinitely combine imperial commitments with domestic under-investment and expect no internal consequence.
The moral contradiction is equally corrosive. At least until recently, the United States has claimed to defend sovereignty in Ukraine, oppose coercion in Asia, and uphold international law against rivals. Yet in the Middle East, it has often shielded allies from the very standards it invokes elsewhere. U.S. support for Israel amid the Gaza catastrophe, the wider regional war, and the confrontation with Iran have deepened the perception that American legality is selective. Human rights organizations have warned that continued military support amid alleged serious abuses risks complicity and weakens the credibility of the legal order Washington has traditionally claimed to defend. A power that applies law only to adversaries does not preserve order; it converts international law into a global power hierarchy.
U.S. economic policy now displays the same arrogance. Sanctions, tariffs, export controls, investment restrictions, and financial penalties have become routine instruments of U.S. statecraft. Used carefully, they can serve legitimate security purposes. Used excessively, they teach other states that dependence on U.S.-controlled systems is a vulnerability. RAND’s recent work argues that the boundary between economic security and economic statecraft has broken down, and that U.S. policy now needs clearer tests of purpose, economic soundness, legitimacy, and sustainability. Research on financial sanctions similarly notes that the overuse of dollar power can encourage hedging against the dollar-centered system. Coercion may deliver short-term compliance, but it can also lay the groundwork for long-term exit.
Keep reading
You must be logged in to post a comment.