One thing is certain: the age of American primacy is over. What comes next will be far more unpredictable.
Mithu G. Parmar
The United States stands at a defining moment in history, grappling with an existential dilemma: how to sustain its global leadership in a world where its dominance is no longer unchallenged. Is seems a fainted lion in jungle of elephants with no powers. For decades, America shaped international politics, economics, and security under the framework of a liberal world order—one that championed free trade, democratic ideals, human rights and multilateral institutions. Yet over the past ten years, its influence has steadily declined, exposing the fragility of a system that once seemed unshakable & impossible to be hurt.
The post-Cold War era, marked by unchallenged U.S. supremacy, is unmistakably fading. The unipolar moment—where America acted as the undisputed architect of global norms—has given way to a far more contested landscape. The liberal international order, once a monopoly of Western ideals, is now under siege from rising powers, nationalist movements, and ideological alternatives. No longer can Washington dictate terms with the same authority it once held. The world is no longer willing to follow—and America appears less willing to lead.
The symptoms of American retreat are everywhere. NATO, the cornerstone of transatlantic security, faces existential doubts as U.S. commitment wavers. Economic policy has turned increasingly mercantilist, with trade wars and industrial subsidies replacing the free-market evangelism of the past. Alliances in Asia and the Middle East are being recalibrated, often with less U.S. involvement. Even the containment strategies that once kept adversaries in check—whether against Russia or China—are being softened or inconsistently enforced.
This is not merely a shift in strategy but a fundamental rethinking of America’s role in the world. The U.S. no longer sees itself as the indispensable nation—the global policeman, the guarantor of trade routes, or the promoter of democratic revolutions. Instead, a growing isolationist streak, fueled by domestic polarization and economic anxieties, has pushed the country toward a more transactional, inward-looking foreign policy. The result is a power vacuum, one that competitors are eager to fill.
Read: A new world order: How global politics is being reshaped
With American leadership in question, the world faces a pivotal uncertainty: What comes next? The post-U.S. order is unlikely to resemble the Cold War’s bipolarity or the brief unipolarity of the 1990s. Instead, we are entering an age of asymmetric multipolarity – a system where power is dispersed among several major states, regional blocs, and even non-state actors, none of which can claim true global dominance. Digital order where companies will be dictating the world is another possibility.
China, often considered as the next hegemon, possesses formidable economic strength but remains constrained by geopolitical vulnerabilities. Its territorial disputes—Taiwan, the South China Sea, and the Himalayan standoff with India—prevent it from consolidating regional dominance, let alone global leadership. Moreover, China’s authoritarian model lacks the soft power appeal that once amplified American influence. China doesn’t have its backyard unchallenged like America has. One can easily enjoy the rest of the world if it has home is free from all threats. America leaves soft powers behind in its region.
Europe, though economically significant, remains politically fragmented and militarily dependent. Russia, despite its disruptive capabilities, is a declining power, overextended in Ukraine and shackled by sanctions. India is rising but remains focused on its own development rather than global stewardship. Meanwhile, middle powers like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are asserting their own spheres of influence, further complicating the geopolitical chessboard.
In this transitional phase, two broad scenarios emerge.
The first is ‘a descent into disorder’ – a world where no single power can enforce stability, old conflicts resurface, and new rivalries escalate unchecked. Without a central arbiter, regional flashpoints (from the Taiwan Strait to the Middle East) could spiral into broader confrontations. Economic decoupling, resource competition, and arms races may become the norm, turning international relations into a Hobbesian struggle for survival. There would be jungle with no international laws followed.
Read: Emerging Multipolarity: Critical Analysis of a Shifting Global Order
Read: The second, more hopeful possibility is a reinvigorated multilateral system, where international institutions—the UN, WTO, or even new coalitions—step in to mediate disputes and uphold a rules-based framework. Yet this scenario faces immense hurdles. Existing institutions are often paralyzed by great-power rivalries, while emerging blocs (like BRICS) lack cohesion. For multilateralism to succeed, major powers would need to prioritize collective stability over narrow self-interest—a difficult proposition in today’s zero-sum climate.
For now, the world seems destined for a messy, competitive multipolarity—a geopolitical jungle with no clear alpha predator. The U.S. will remain a major player but not the dominant one. China will expand its influence but fall short of hegemony. Regional powers will assert themselves, creating a patchwork of competing spheres.
This new era will be defined not by the clarity of superpower rivalry but by fluid alliances, economic warfare, and constant recalibration. Whether this leads to conflict or an uneasy equilibrium depends on whether the great powers can avoid outright confrontation—and whether any institution can rise to manage the chaos.
One thing, however, is certain: the age of American primacy is over. What comes next will be far more unpredictable.
Read: Empire’s Self-Inflicted Wounds
__________________
The writer is a student of international Relations at the University of Sindh Jamshoro
