The Economist: "America's attempts to impose its designs on the Middle East have run their course"

America seems to be stuck in the Middle East.  It has no easy way out of its war with Iran.  Yet the conflict, however it ends, will in fact mark something quite different: the moment when America pulls back from the region—in the sense that it finally relinquishes its hegemony there.  For the first time since the great powers dismembered the Ottoman empire a century ago, the Middle East’s overarching order will no longer be imposed from afar.  Will that herald an orgy of score-settling and violence, or a new beginning? 

After three wars, countless covert operations and seemingly endless rounds of diplomacy, America's attempts to impose its designs have run their course.  Like Britain, France and Russia, America will still be involved.  It will occasionally use military force to pursue its interests, including for counter-terrorism.   But it will abandon its role as architect.

The signs of America's looming retrenchment are unmistakable—even as President Donald Trump uses the annual meeting of the UN to threaten Iran with "annihilation" for the umpteenth time.  Two stand out.  Earlier this month America declined to join its ally Saudi Arabia in striking the Houthis in Yemen, who are endangering shipping in the Red Sea.  Instead it held talks behind the Saudis' backs to spare American vessels from attack.  That may seem like a detail, but when a superpower does deals with an insurgent militia, everyone understands it wants to cut its commitments.

The other sign is the expectation that America will limit its presence in the Middle East.  In peacetime it has 30,000-40,000 troops on 19 bases, eight of which are permanent.  However, the war has exposed how vulnerable they are to drones and cheap missiles.

~ "When America walks away: For decades America has enjoyed hegemony over the Middle East. That is about to end," The Economist, September 24, 2026

 

Jeffrey Sachs on why the U.S. opposes Russia and China

What do we have against Russia?  The fact of the matter is, Russia is big.  Russia is powerful.  And for that reason and that reason alone, or sufficiently, the U.S. would oppose Russia, just like the U.S. opposes China.  Now of course, maybe people listening to this would say, "That's crazy.  We oppose China because all of the terrible things they do."  Or "We oppose Russia because all of the terrible things they do."  I would take a different view of this which is, we make up stories about why we oppose big powers, but the basic reason we oppose big powers is that they are big.  They are an afront to our desire for what the political scientists in a fancy word call "primacy," or call "hegemony," or call "full spectrum dominance."  In other words, Russia is an afront to our ability to dictate circumstances.  China certainly is an afront to the U.S. ability to dictate circumstances in Asia.  For that reason alone, for the powers that be in Washington, that's completely antithetical to the American strategic purpose, which explicitly, for many, many years has been full spectrum dominance...  In other words, our purpose, as stated by the establishment, by the military industrial complex, is "We must be the unrivaled #1."

Jeffrey Sachs, "Jeffrey Sachs: The Dark Forces Pushing Trump Into War With Iran, & Ukraine/Russia New Escalation," Tucker Carlson, 7:15 mark, June 11, 2025

Kevin Duffy on fixing America's economic problems and maintaining an empire

While America’s economic problems are fixable, American hegemony is ephemeral.  The U.S. can have guns or butter, but not both. 

President Trump is writing checks he cannot cash.  He can’t maintain an empire and reduce the size of government.  He can’t limit cheap imports and keep a lid on inflation.  He can’t manage trade from the top down and cultivate a free market from the bottom up.  He can’t bully the world and enjoy the privilege of printing the world’s reserve currency.

~ Kevin Duffy, "Mercantilism in America," The Coffee Can Portfolio, May 6, 2025

Henry Kissinger on peace

In the end, peace can be achieved only by hegemony or by balance of power.

~ Henry A. Kissinger

Kissinger receiving his 1973 Nobel Peace Prize from Thomas Byrne, US Ambassador to Norway. Kissinger shared the award with Le Duc Tho, North Vietnam's negotiator, "for jointly having negotiated a ceasefire in Vietnam in 1973." Tho refused the award.

Fareed Zakaria on the shifting of empires the past 500 years

There have been three tectonic power shifts over the last five hundred years, fundamental changes in the distribution of power that have reshaped international life—its politics, economics, and culture. The first was the rise of the Western world, a process that began in the fifteenth century and accelerated dramatically in the late eighteenth century. It produced modernity as we know it: science and technology, commerce and capitalism, the agricultural and industrial revolutions. It also produced the prolonged political dominance of the nations of the West.

The second shift, which took place in the closing years of the nineteenth century, was the rise of the United States. Soon after it industrialized, the United States became the most powerful nation since imperial Rome, and the only one that was stronger than any likely combination of other nations. For most of the last century, the United States has dominated global economics, politics, science, and culture. For the last twenty years, that dominance has been unrivaled, a phenomenon unprecedented in modern history.

We are now living through the third great power shift of the modern era. It could be called “the rise of the rest.” Over the past few decades, countries all over the world have been experiencing rates of economic growth that were once unthinkable. While they have had booms and busts, the overall trend has been unambiguously upward. This growth has been most visible in Asia but is no longer confined to it. That is why to call this shift “the rise of Asia” does not describe it accurately. In 2006 and 2007, 124 countries grew at a rate of 4 percent or more. That includes more than 30 countries in Africa, two-thirds of the continent. Antoine van Agtmael, the fund manager who coined the term “emerging markets,” has identified the 25 companies most likely to be the world's next great multinationals. His list includes four companies each from Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, and Taiwan; three from India; two from China; and one each from Argentina, Chile, Malaysia, and South Africa.

~ Fareed Zakaria, The Post-American World

2008

Fareed Zakaria on the decline of U.S. hegemony and fragility of the rules-based international order

The central challenge in international relations we face is a version of what's going on in the Middle East, which is "can we maintain a rules-based international order that encourages open trade, open commerce, open communication, open information platforms without the great, liberal, hegemon superpower that sustained, built and paid for the international system as it exists today, the United States?"  Because the U.S. is not going to be able to play that role that it's played in the past, partly because it has grown weary, partly because others have risen and will not accept U.S. hegemony.  States like Russia, Iran, groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, are basically trying in various ways to undermine the rules-based order, undermine the international system, burn the house down.  Will they win or will the United States and Europe and Japan and Singapore and Saudi Arabia, all these countries that want order and stability and openness, will they prevail?  That's the big dynamic and that's why what happens in the Middle East has a larger global significance.

~ Fareed Zakaria, "The Conflict in Israel and the State of Foreign Affairs," The Prof G Show - Scott Galloway, 21:15 mark, October 14, 2023

Jim Rogers on the death of the U.S. dollar

But what is happening now with the U.S. dollar now is the end of the U.S. dollar because an international currency is supposed to be neutral, but in Washington they are now changing the rules.  Now if Washington does not like you, they put sanctions on you and you cannot use U.S. dollars.

~ Jim Rogers

(As quotes by Daniela Cambone in her interview with Jim Rogers, Stansberry Research, 4:00 mark, March 8, 2022.)

Kim Iversen on the end of American hegemony

I do think this is about NATO expansion.  I think that's upset Putin.  I also think this was very planned.  And I think we are being very shortsighted thinking that this is just a Ukraine issue.  I don't think this is about Ukraine.  I think this is about American hegemony.  And the more we understand this: that is what they're taking on [Russia and China], we're already in World War III, be just don't realize it.  Hopefully it doesn't escalate to a nuclear war, but at this point they're taking us on.  That statement, if you read the whole statement that was put out by China and Russia on February 4th, it is ominous.  They're basically saying, "Your days are numbered, guys.  It's over." 

They then forge all these economic partnerships to one another and then suddenly Russia goes in and invades Ukraine, as if they were going to have a NATO vote tomorrow to bring them in?  They weren't.  There was nothing truly imminent about it.  Why did it happen?  Because I think these guys planned this out and thought this through and I think the U.S. dollar's been replaced.  We just don't realize it yet...

~ Kim Iversen, "Kim Iversen: Ukraine-Russia Is REALLY About The Demise Of US Hegemony, Petrodollar," The Hill, 15:00 mark, March 1, 2022

Marko Papic on hegemony

I'm not trying to tell you that American hegemony is a good thing.  I'm telling you that any hegemony is a good thing for us as investors.  American, Chinese, alien overlord takes over earth as long as they let us invest, baby, that's good for us.  That's my point: it resolves information problems.

~ Marko Papic, "Geopolitical risk in the equity markets," YouTube, 22:00 mark, January 8, 2015