WILAYAH NEWS VOICE OF THE GLOBAL AWAKENING
Related Articles
## Does the Confrontation with Iran Reveal the Decline of American Hegemony?
**Akram Bazzi**
Every time the United States moves toward military escalation, the same question arises: Are we witnessing the expression of a superpower that still imposes its will on the world, or a belated attempt to conceal the decline of its international standing? This is the question raised by American economist Richard Wolff, who believes that the confrontation with Iran reflects not so much confidence as the anxiety that accompanies empires when they begin to lose their central position.
Wolff approaches the issue through an economic reading of history, comparing the current situation of the United States with the trajectory of the British Empire during its years of decline. In his view, empires do not collapse suddenly. Rather, they enter a phase in which they attempt to compensate for economic decline through military displays, believing that hard power can halt the movement of history.
One of the main indicators on which Wolff relies is the size of the US public debt, which has surpassed unprecedented levels at a time when Washington depends on continuous borrowing to finance its military spending and foreign commitments. He argues that the continuation of this approach is exposing the American economy to growing fiscal challenges, particularly as the cost of wars rises and the economy’s ability to bear their long-term burdens declines.
He also warns that any escalation in the Gulf, especially if the Strait of Hormuz is affected, would have consequences extending far beyond the Middle East. Rising oil and energy prices would directly affect the US economy, where millions of Americans live on incomes that barely cover their basic needs. Under such circumstances, inflation and the rising cost of living could turn into a domestic social and political crisis that would be difficult to contain.
Wolff’s analysis does not stop at the economic dimension; it also extends to the political sphere. He argues that foreign confrontations are often used to divert attention from internal problems, such as the widening gap between the rich and the poor, the decline of the middle class, and the growing political divisions within the United States.
The most striking point in his argument, however, is that the world is no longer unipolar as it was after the end of the Cold War. According to his analysis, the G7 countries no longer represent the center of gravity of the global economy, while the BRICS group is expanding and increasing its contribution to the international economy. He points out that many countries, particularly in Africa and Latin America, no longer depend exclusively on Washington or European capitals for financing and investment. Instead, they now have multiple options, foremost among them China, which has succeeded in strengthening its presence through infrastructure projects and long-term investments.
Wolff cites economic growth figures to support this transformation. While the US economy is growing at a steady pace, China and India are achieving higher growth rates. This means that the global economic gap is gradually shifting in Asia’s favor and that the balance of economic power is no longer what it was several decades ago.
In this context, Wolff draws on the lessons of history, reminding us that military power alone has never been sufficient to guarantee the survival of empires. Despite its military superiority, the United States has fought costly wars against countries with fewer resources and weaker capabilities, and many of those wars ended without achieving their stated political objectives. He compares this with what happened to the British Empire when it confronted the American colonies during the Revolutionary War. Britain’s military power did not prevent its defeat by a less well-equipped adversary, because the balance of history was changing.
In a profound analytical reading of the current geopolitical landscape, prominent American political scientist and academic John Mearsheimer stated, in an interview with *Al Araby Al Jadeed* dated May 20, 2026, that the recent military confrontation led by the United States and “Israel” against Iran represents a grave strategic mistake and an undeniable political catastrophe for Washington. His critical analysis, whose details were published through the YouTube network, seeks to dismantle the illusions upon which the war was based. He explains that betting on a quick victory through devastating strikes or by undermining the structure of the regime in Tehran was a naïve and unrealistic assessment of the nature of regional powers.
In his televised analytical discussions with journalist Chris Hedges on May 25, 2026, the American thinker argues that the conflict quickly turned into a war of attrition whose ultimate advantage lies with the Iranian side. He highlights Tehran’s ability to absorb the initial shocks and to cause disruptions in global energy markets by exerting significant pressure on strategic shipping routes, in addition to exposing the weaknesses of the defensive systems available to its adversaries.
From this perspective, Mearsheimer emphasizes that the battle was not fought in defense of American national interests, but rather in response to narrow “Israeli” agendas and calculations. This, he argues, will become increasingly clear to the American political establishment and public, causing severe and lasting damage to the strategic relationship between the two countries.
The analysis concludes, based on his written contributions to the *Financial Times* dated May 28, 2026, that Washington and “Tel Aviv’s” inability to achieve their objectives reflects a fundamental shift in the balance of international power. It also signals a decline in the visible manifestations of American hegemony in the Middle East, leaving the US administration facing a genuine predicament, without any clear exit strategy in a region growing more complex and volatile.
Many may disagree with the assessments or conclusions of Mearsheimer and economist Richard Wolff. Nevertheless, the question remains: Can military power compensate for economic decline? Or is history repeating itself, only for great powers to discover, too late, that genuine influence begins with the economy, production, and innovation, rather than with battlefields alone?
The confrontation with Iran may not be the cause of America’s decline. However, if it continues and its consequences expand, it could become one of the episodes revealing that the world has indeed entered a transitional phase—one in which unipolarity is giving way to a more pluralistic international system with multiple centers of power and influence.
