From hegemony to contestation: Unraveling of American primacy

From rising geopolitical rivalries to evolving forms of warfare, recent developments have exposed the limits of American supremacy. The question is no longer whether the United States remains powerful, but whether its dominance is giving way to a more complex, contested, and multipolar world

The global order, long anchored in the unquestioned dominance of the United States, is entering a phase of visible transition. What once appeared as an unchallenged hegemony - military, ideological and institutional - is now being contested across regions and theatres of conflict. Recent developments in West Asia, particularly involving Iran and the United States, have brought this shift into sharp relief. The central question, therefore, is not whether American power remains significant, it clearly does, but whether its supremacy is beginning to retreat and transform into a more contested form of influence.

For decades, American global leadership rested on two pillars: strategic doctrine and ideological conviction. The Monroe Doctrine, originally confined to the Western Hemisphere, gradually expanded in spirit to justify a broader global role, especially after the Second World War. Alongside this was the idea of American exceptionalism, the belief that the United States represents the highest culmination of liberty, democracy and freedom, and therefore carries a unique responsibility to lead the world. However, recent events suggest that both these pillars are under strain.

There is a misalignment between the strategic goals of the United States and its ability to project power, given the relative decline in its economy and the rise of peer competitors. An overextension of American power occurred due to the expansion of military campaigns since 2001, alongside a cut in defence spending, nuclear capability and shipbuilding capacity. The wars, government bailouts and the stimulus response to the pandemic also drove the long-term sovereign debt of the country upwards. These challenges were also compounded with a de-industrialisation phase, leading to the closing down of jobs in the manufacturing sector domestically, affecting many of the Rust Belt communities. While America floundered, rival powers emerged as tough competitors, including a brazen China, an emboldened Russia, alongside threats from North Korea and Iran. Given the consequences of its recent military, economic and industrial policy choices, the US faces a problem identified as ‘simultaneity’ by the Pentagon- the possibility of war on multiple fronts without American capability to handle them.  Given these issues confronting the US, attempts to assert dominance through unilateral approaches have, instead of consolidating influence as has been the case in recent decades, exposed its vulnerabilities. The aura of inevitability that once surrounded American leadership is weakening, revealing gaps between perception and reality. The ideological claim of universal acceptance is also being challenged, as more regions assert their own political and cultural autonomy.

Nowhere is this shift more evident than in West Asia, a region where the United States has historically functioned as the principal security provider. Since the mid-20th century, American military presence and alliances have underwritten the stability of several Gulf nations, positioning Washington as an indispensable “umbrella power.” Yet, recent confrontations have begun to challenge this assumption.

Iran’s demonstrated ability to target American military installations and strategic assets in the region has exposed limitations in the United States’ capacity to guarantee security. The long-held perception of America as an unassailable protector is no longer taken for granted. Regional actors are increasingly aware that reliance on a single external power may not ensure stability in an era of shifting geopolitical dynamics. A crucial dimension of this transformation lies in the emergence of a new form of warfare. Iran’s strategy reflects a sophisticated model of asymmetrical warfare, combining decentralisation with adaptability. Instead of relying solely on conventional, centralised military operations, it has adopted a networked approach, deploying relatively low-cost technologies such as drones and missiles while simultaneously expanding the theatre of engagement.

This dual strategy of vertical and horizontal has redefined conflict. Vertical strikes enable targeted attacks on critical infrastructure, while horizontal operations extend the battlefield to actors and locations previously considered peripheral. The result is a dispersed and unpredictable mode of warfare that challenges traditional assumptions about military superiority. It demonstrates that dominance is no longer determined solely by scale of resources, but by innovation, flexibility and strategic depth. In many ways, the present moment appears to echo Samuel Huntington’s influential thesis of the “Clash of Civilizations.” Huntington had argued that in the post-Cold War era, the primary source of conflict would shift from ideological rivalries to cultural and civilizational divides. He also cautioned that the West’s belief in the universality of its values could provoke resistance from non-Western societies.

What we are witnessing today, particularly in West Asia, reflects elements of this tension: not merely as a clash of arms, but as a deeper contest over legitimacy, identity and global order. The resistance to externally imposed frameworks, the assertion of cultural and political autonomy, and the challenge to Western dominance resonate with Huntington’s core argument.

Yet, the current reality is more complex than a simple civilizational binary. The emerging conflicts cut across alliances and geographies, involving actors that do not neatly fit into fixed categories. The situation suggests not just a clash of civilizations, but a fragmentation of the very idea of cohesive civilizational blocs, shaped by shifting interests, technologies and strategic alignments.

Another critical development is the fracturing within the Western alliance system itself. For decades, institutions like NATO, supported by strong transatlantic ties, formed the backbone of the American-led global order. However, recent divergences between the United States and its European partners indicate a growing lack of cohesion. Statements questioning NATO’s role and Europe’s cautious response to certain American positions during the Iran war point to an evolving dissonance within the alliance. This weakening of collective alignment has significant implications. It reduces the amplifying effect that alliances once provided to American power and opens space for alternative centres of influence to emerge. When the foundational structures of a hegemonic system begin to show strain, the system itself enters a phase of recalibration.

At the same time, the notion of de-escalation in the current context remains uncertain. While diplomatic language may suggest restraint, developments on the ground indicate continued volatility. Both sides appear unwilling to concede strategic ground. Incidents such as targeted strikes, interception of vessels and retaliatory actions suggest that the conflict remains active, even if its intensity fluctuates. The situation around the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy corridors, further reinforces this instability. Its periodic disruption highlights how regional tensions can have immediate global consequences. In such a scenario, even limited confrontations carry the potential for broader economic and geopolitical impact.

Taken together, these developments point towards a reconfiguration of global power dynamics. The United States remains a formidable force, with unmatched military capabilities and significant economic and technological strength. However, its dominance is no longer absolute or uncontested. Given these conditions that the US is faced with, what is inevitably emerging is a more multipolar and fluid world order, where power is distributed across multiple actors and constantly negotiated. Regional players are asserting themselves with greater confidence, new forms of warfare are altering strategic calculations, and traditional alliances are being redefined.

The question, therefore, is not whether American supremacy is ending, but whether it is transforming into a more contested and negotiated form of influence. In that transformation lies the outline of a new global order, one defined less by singular dominance and more by complexity, competition and continual recalibration. Essentially, this changing global order, where US hegemony is on the decline, presents a new set of challenges and opportunities for the global south, particularly for India. Given the depth of India - US relations and New Delhi relations with Iran, India’s balancing act will be tested.

With the Strait of Hormuz effectively a battlefield, Brent crude has spiked to USD 115 per barrel, with projections reaching USD 130 if the blockade persists through the summer

The writer is the Vice Chancellor, Gauhati University; Views presented are personal.