The twilight of American leadership

“And so, in the course of history, everything that was previously real becomes unreal, loses its necessity, its right to exist, its rational character. ”

Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy

Amidst the gilded splendour of the Palace of Versailles, Donald Trump, in a flamboyant reality-TV-style display, signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” with the Iranian government ‘online’. This agreement was intended to impose an immediate ceasefire, open negotiations for sixty days and, at the same time, reopen the Strait of Hormuz to merchant shipping. That was on 17 June 2026, but the war is still raging, and will probably continue indefinitely in a Middle East that has become even more volatile since the Israeli-American attack. The far-right Israeli minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, is already threatening to “burn the whole of Lebanon”. Clashes between Iran and the United States are on the rise, and Trump himself has contributed to a resumption of hostilities with the involvement of Saudi Arabia. Houthi attacks are intensifying, US bases in the Middle East are under ever-greater threat, and Trump has clearly warned that US bombing raids on Iran will resume after the mid-term elections on 3 November. For capitalism, war is a way of life.

The vicious spiral of regional imperialist wars

The attack launched on 28 February 2026 by the Israeli and US armies against Iran has ultimately set the entire Middle East ablaze. From Cyprus to Jordan, from Lebanon to Yemen, the entire region has been affected to varying degrees, not to mention the oil monarchies, which lie at the geographical heart of the conflict. The Iranian people have paid a heavy price. The crackdown on the January protests resulted in the deaths of countless people. Right from the start of the war, Trump was already displaying irresponsibility, recklessness and cynicism, promising aid to the protesters – aid that never materialised – and he has signed off on the lifting of sanctions, which will also enable the mullahs’ regime to rebuild its police and military forces. The repression, of course, has never abated, with 749 hangings since the start of the year, whilst data on the ‘collateral victims’ of the massive Israeli-American bombings is carefully concealed. The argument that guidance systems, software for assessing collateral damage and, above all, the more recent advent of artificial intelligence would make it possible to target only ‘combatants’ whilst limiting civilian casualties is a crude deception, a load of rubbish designed to mask murderous intentions. It is these very same systems that Israel used in Gaza, resulting in a veritable mass slaughter!

The Lebanese population has also been caught in the eye of the storm, with 3,800 civilian deaths since the Israeli offensive began on 2 March, alongside mass displacement and the constant threat of further bombardments, even on schools and hospitals. At the end of March, Defence Minister Israel Katz admitted that the aim was to “destroy all homes in the area [in southern Lebanon], just as in Rafah and Beit Hanoun on the outskirts of Gaza”. But the Israeli state does not stop there. It is scattering white phosphorus, which renders agricultural land unusable. This scorched-earth policy is a general feature of the wars of capitalist decomposition.

The 8 April ceasefire signed with Iran was never actually implemented: it was, above all, a means of blackmail for the United States, which was attempting to use the opening of negotiations and the threat of Iran’s annihilation to its advantage. Today, the region remains in the grip of mass murder.

Whilst the war aims are cynically obvious on the Israeli side (the aim was to bring to its knees Israel’s main imperialist rival for control of the Middle East – Iran and its militias: Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis), they reflect the reality of a ‘go-it-alone’ approach, of every man for himself, marked by absurdity and irrationality. This is illustrated by Netanyahu’s headlong rush, aimed not only at avoiding personal prosecution and appeasing his far-right, ultra-nationalist political allies, but above all embodying the relentless logic of unbridled imperialism, where wars become ever more bogged down, leaving only smouldering ruins and no victors. The resulting military terror and genocidal extremism make the Middle East, more than ever, a permanent hotbed of war.

On the American side, it is even worse. Since the demise of the imperialist blocs in the early 1990s, the United States has seen its international leadership gradually weaken. In an attempt to stem this irreversible trend, whereby its former allies are turning their backs on it, it has regularly flexed its muscles in the hope of convincing others of its peacemaking and protective virtues. The war against Iran was the latest episode in this series. Galvanised by the spectacular ousting of Maduro in Venezuela, Trump spouted the most pretentious rhetoric he is capable of and, without bothering to consult the US Congress or the UN, deployed his naval forces to the Gulf of Oman. The result was catastrophic. The military objectives and strategy revealed from the outset their utter lack of clarity, whilst the American show of force presented an image entirely at odds with the intended aim: it was nothing more and nothing less than a factor in increasing chaos, destruction, instability and the endangerment of allies. European countries – which, incidentally, were not consulted – have refused the offer to join the operation and have condemned the war, including Giorgia Meloni’s Italy, one of the far-right governments that had nevertheless not been indifferent to Trump’s return. Apart from Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies prefer not to retaliate against Iranian attacks, as they have only limited confidence in American protection. And it is now the alliance between Israel and the United States that appears to be under threat.

Whilst the centre of gravity of global imperialist tensions has shifted towards Asia with China’s rise to power, the United States finds itself bogged down in a protracted war. Despite friction with his Israeli ally, and despite the pitiful overtures to the Iranian Supreme Leader whose family he had massacred, Trump struggled immensely to secure the signing of a ‘framework agreement’ with Iran. It had become a matter of urgency for him following the spectacular collapse of his popularity in the United States and the rise in oil prices, for which he bears primary responsibility. Trump triumphantly announced the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. “Let the oil flow freely!”, he exclaimed. But numerous disagreements persist between the two sides, meaning that the Strait is far from being unblocked. Iran fully intends to retain control of this Strait – its main weapon of war – and to impose a transit fee for “maritime services”.

For Israel, the war has failed to rid Gaza of Hamas, Lebanon of Hezbollah, Yemen of the Houthis, or Iran of the mullahs’ regime. But the cost of this failure is even higher for the United States, which can no longer conceal its bitter political and diplomatic defeat. Despite their overwhelming military superiority, none of the objectives have been achieved: neither the fall of the mullahs’ regime, nor the destruction of ballistic missile sites, nor the halting of the nuclear programme. Iran will certainly present itself as the victor and, indeed, its ‘non-defeat’ is a victory. As for China, it is taking advantage of the situation to present itself as a level-headed and peaceful actor befitting its status as a global power.

Faced with this operation – which has been damaging to the United States’ image and costly for its economy – the House of Representatives dared to oppose Trump. It voted, by 215 votes to 208, to withdraw the armed forces and end the air strikes. Some Republicans joined this protest vote, and Trump’s camp is becoming increasingly divided, including within the MAGA movement. The US arsenal is dwindling dangerously; it will take several years to replenish it. Trump has had to secure additional funding for the ammunition stockpile, which will amount to 53 billion dollars by 2027. More than 1,000 Tomahawk missiles have been fired at Iran since February, whilst only 207 were delivered in 2026. This is a real drain on the US economy, given that a single Tomahawk missile costs $2.6 million, a Patriot missile $3.9 million, and the price rises to $28.7 million for an SM-6. Marjorie Taylor Greene, the figurehead of the ultra-Trumpist MAGA movement, could not resist remarking, with fine irony: “So this is what victory looks like!”

Trapped in its own contradictions, the United States is forced to continue the war in the Middle East. And it is behaving just as irrationally in Ukraine with the latest ‘agreements’ proposed to Russia. This will enable Russia to free up capital to continue the war, even though it was in difficulty. This is further confirmation of our analysis of the historical situation. In the period of decadence, war has become capitalism’s way of life, and economic and geostrategic objectives have taken a back seat. The phase of decomposition carries within it an exacerbation of the characteristics of decadence. This is what the endless wars in the Middle East, Ukraine and Africa show us. Irrationality and destruction are reaching new heights, and all countries are being forced to rearm as a matter of urgency – not because we are heading towards a generalised world war between imperialist blocs, but because confrontations between nations are intensifying and leading to ever more numerous, ever longer and ever more costly regional wars. Such is the addictive outlet that has taken hold of the decomposing capitalist system.

The transformation of quantity into quality

It is well known that the formation of imperialist blocs during the period of capitalism’s decline is achieved through coercion. Whilst allies divide up tasks and profits according to their respective capabilities, the primary concern for the bloc’s leader is to impose discipline on allies who, amongst themselves, are in competition as national capitals. For this reason, the leading countries of both blocs had to demonstrate a decisive military advantage over their allies. This was the case for both the United States and Russia after the Second World War, both of which possessed a powerful nuclear and conventional arsenal.

With the dissolution of the two blocs beginning in 1989, the way was opened for allies to challenge the leading power, which had previously dominated largely by virtue of its military and economic might. Whilst the Russian bloc effectively imploded in 1989, American leadership, for its part, entered a crisis and its position has continued to deteriorate ever since. Admittedly, Washington reacted in an attempt to counter this decline. Thus, President Bush Senior set a trap for Saddam Hussein in 1991 by leading him to believe that the United States did not oppose his invasion of Kuwait, then securing the approval of the UN Security Council, by a large majority (including the USSR), a resolution demanding the withdrawal of Iraqi troops and granting the United States a mandate to enforce it. The First Gulf War was a success for the United States, as it managed to rally the entire international community behind it, particularly its European allies, who unanimously aligned themselves with Washington.

However, shortly afterwards, during the civil wars that followed the break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the united front began to crumble. The United States and the Europeans intervened under the auspices of the UN, but each national contingent of peacekeepers pursued its own objectives. France and Britain supported Serbia, Germany supported Croatia, and the United States supported Bosnia.

And when Bush Jr. once again attempted to rally the world behind the United States for a war against Saddam Hussein’s ‘rogue state’ in the Second Iraq War in 2003 – justified by the blatant lie about Iraq’s stockpiles of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ – the rift between Washington and its ‘allies’ widened. The Frenchman Dominique de Villepin, Foreign Secretary under President Jacques Chirac, stepped forward to denounce the war at the UN Security Council. Germany joined France in voting against a new invasion of Iraq. The United States lost its allies one after the other and became bogged down in a protracted war, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq. They emerge with great difficulty from the Iraqi quagmire, leaving behind a devastated country and terrorist organisations that have sprung up from the ruins of Saddam Hussein’s routed army. They likewise withdraw from Afghanistan without consulting their European allies in 2021 and are forced to accept the Taliban’s return to power

Trump himself will seal the decline of American hegemony by dealing the final blow to its flagship institution, the Atlantic Alliance. This began in February 2025 with a proposal to Putin to open peace negotiations in Ukraine without the participation of either the Europeans or Ukraine. This was followed by several prominent Americans denouncing the old European democracy, whilst Trump lent his support to all the populist movements across the continent. On 28 February, Zelensky was humiliated live on American television. Faced with Zelensky’s resistance and his refusal to accept the American diktat regarding Ukraine’s rare earths, Trump took a series of decisions to force Ukraine to yield and to put pressure on European countries, notably the suspension of military support for the Ukrainian army (in terms of both weaponry and intelligence), which forced European countries to increase their financial and military support. He tried again last October by proposing a deal to Putin. The aim was to lift some of the sanctions against Russia so that it could sell its diesel on the world market, including to the United States. On 11 October, he decreed a ceasefire in Ukraine. But Russia continues to bomb Ukraine, and Trump is reduced to berating Zelensky by ordering him to halt the bombing of Russian energy infrastructure. The aim is less to bring down fuel prices ahead of the Midterms than to weaken Europe once again by continuing to dismantle the last remaining transatlantic ties. The aim is to punish those European countries that have been at the forefront of anti-American protest since the war in Yugoslavia. Such was the meaning of the threat Trump had hurled – in the usual flamboyantly macho language– against the European Union, whose sole purpose, he claimed, is to “screw the US” After economic interests, it is now geostrategic interests that are taking a back seat. The irrationality of a decomposing capitalism is laid bare.

Furthermore, Trump is raising customs duties to punish his rivals and reiterating his ambitions regarding the Panama Canal, Canada and Greenland. This centrifugal dynamic, exacerbated by the United States, is imposing itself on all countries, as it is the product of the economic and military competition that shapes them all, and of the absence of a common vision – a vision rendered illusory by the all-out explosion of ‘every man for himself’. The setbacks in relations between France and Germany are characteristic of a situation in which the path towards the re-formation of imperialist blocs is, for the time being, blocked. We have seen the failure of the project for the European fighter aircraft of the future, the SCAF, and the two countries are still unable to find common ground on the development of the planned main battle tank. The two contenders for European leadership are forced into a state of powerlessness and remain 60 per cent dependent on American armaments.

The questioning of the transatlantic pact is swallowing up the last remnants of the former American bloc. European countries are panicking, approving colossal military budgets; Germany is considering amending its constitution to lift the ban on public deficits due to rising military expenditure. Under pressure from the economic crisis and the obstacles increasingly hampering the globalised economy, competition between national capital is intensifying further. Meanwhile, the international regulatory bodies inherited from the former blocs are being dissolved, the UN is becoming a useless luxury, NATO is floundering, and populist movements are gaining ground. To cap it all, Trump supports European populists and never fails to highlight the shortcomings of the old liberal democracy. In the United States, white supremacists and neo-Nazis parade openly.

The war with Iran encompasses all the elements of this 35-year dynamic of the decline of American leadership in the world and takes it to a higher level.

The twilight of American leadership

With the war in Iran, the world has just taken a considerable leap into chaos and irrationality. Never before have the reasons for such a conflict been so confused, nor the objectives of a war so poorly prepared and defined. Despite the overwhelming superpower status of the American and Israeli armed forces, the war ultimately constitutes a massive military and strategic failure for the United States, which now finds itself more isolated than ever on the world stage.

Admittedly, the Vietnam War in the early 1970s had already marked a military defeat for the United States, with the fall of Saigon and the reunification of Vietnam under the ‘Communist’ North. However, on a global scale, it had been accompanied by a considerable strengthening of American hegemony thanks to the diplomatic agreements concluded between Nixon and Mao, which had led to China’s inclusion in the American bloc. This was a key moment in the encirclement of the Soviet bloc by the United States and its allies, a process essential to the latter’s disintegration. Conversely, the war in Iran ended in a debacle for the Americans, without any compensatory benefit for them:

– Despite the bombardment of Iranian cities and infrastructure, the social uprisings against the Islamic regime – which Trump and Netanyahu had been encouraging for some time – failed to materialise. On the contrary, the violence and destruction inflicted upon the Iranian people have only served to increase fear and demoralisation, leaving them more divided than ever since the terrible repression and massacres carried out in response to the anti-regime protests that erupted in December 2025 and January 2026. The idea of regime change was frequently cited as a war aim at the start of the US-Israeli offensive. Today, Trump is raising the possibility of direct talks with the Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, and speculating on the possibility of a “very good understanding” between them.

– Despite its inability to directly counter the strikes by American and Israeli aircraft and missiles, the Islamic regime reacted shrewdly, so to speak, by targeting Arab regimes within range of its own missiles and drones (which, contrary to Trump’s boasts, have not been destroyed), causing them to doubt the real protection afforded to them by US military forces in the region. Above all, by closing the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has considerably increased the economic cost of the war and the damage inflicted on the Arab Gulf regimes, global trade and supply chains. Economic losses are a reality that Trump understands, and the US’s inability to lift the Iranian blockade is probably one of the main reasons why Trump is desperately seeking to extricate himself from this quagmire.

– Naturally, Trump is attempting to present the Memorandum of Understanding between the Iranians and the Americans as a victory, but not only his usual critics, but also many of his former supporters, point out that the deal struck by Obama with Tehran in 2015, allowing for international inspection of Iran’s nuclear programme, was more advantageous for the United States than this new ‘deal ’, in which the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme was not even addressed, let alone resolved. Furthermore, Trump’s ‘great deal’ provides for the release of billions of dollars of Iranian assets held by the United States and the suspension of the sanctions regime that has considerably weakened the Iranian economy for years. On paper at least, the Trump administration has committed to providing the necessary funds to “restore Iran to its former glory’” It is therefore not surprising that terms such as ‘humiliation’, ‘appeasement’ and ‘defeat’ are widely used in the media to describe the deal from the American perspective. Furthermore, as it is far from certain that Israel will agree to abide by the agreement in the long term and cease its military actions in Lebanon, or even in Iran itself, the ceasefire has collapsed on several occasions. Indeed, clashes have been on the rise since the agreement was signed – yet another ‘piece of paper’.

– Whilst most factions within the US ruling class agree that China has become the United States’ principal imperialist rival and insist on the need to concentrate their military resources on the Far East and the containment of China, the war against Iran has diverted considerable military resources needed to encircle China, whilst significantly depleting US stocks of missiles and weaponry. Following the summits between Trump and Xi in Beijing and Washington, Trump boasted of the ‘success’ of the talks with the Chinese leader; in reality, however, Xi’s main aim was to strengthen his position as a global power with whom it is possible to do business, and very few of the “fantastic trade deals” mentioned by Trump have materialised. Nor was the crucial issue of tariffs addressed, even though China has already demonstrated its ability to stand up to the United States, notably thanks to its virtual monopoly on the processing of rare earths, which the United States cannot do without.

However, these short-term credibility gains for Beijing do nothing to alter the fact that, in the wars of decadent capitalism, all the world’s states tend to be the losers. The escalating military chaos in the Middle East constitutes a major obstacle to China’s efforts to extend the New Silk Roads into this region of vital strategic importance. Furthermore, the recurring meetings with Putin certainly do not signify the formation of a Russian-Chinese bloc, as neither power is willing to submit to the other. Even the agreement on the planned gas pipeline to link Russia and China via Mongolia appears to have stalled, and China remains very cautious about the idea of supplying equipment directly to the Russian war effort in Ukraine.

– As for the ability of Trump and his entourage to remain in power in the United States, the war has dealt a severe blow to the president. A recent vote in Congress saw a majority of representatives pass a motion demanding that Trump either obtain congressional approval or withdraw US military forces from the conflict in Iran. Although this vote remains largely symbolic – as it has not yet been ratified by a Republican-majority Senate, and its legal validity remains doubtful – it is nonetheless significant: several Republican representatives rebelled against the president and backed the motion tabled by the Democrats. Perhaps even more significant is the anger that the Iranian venture has provoked within a significant section of the MAGA movement, with leading figures such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson condemning Trump for reneging on his promise to end all ‘foreign wars’. Unsurprisingly, this led Trump to attack his former allies, branding them traitors to the MAGA cause. The conflict between the right and the left of the American political spectrum is becoming increasingly bitter, and it has been further exacerbated by divisions within the right itself, accelerating a process of fragmentation. Trump’s popularity is plummeting in the polls. The deterioration in living standards for the working classes is a damning symptom. In September, annual inflation stood at 3.7 per cent; petrol prices have risen by 20 per cent in a year, and heating oil by 74 per cent.

In the war in Iran, the American superpower has, in reality, revealed its impotence! The show of military force, which was intended to demonstrate the United States’ ability to impose peace and stability through brute force, has brought about the exact opposite: chaos and destruction. The fact that it is the United States—that is to say, the power that dominates overwhelmingly in economic and military terms—which is the main factor behind the chaos portends unimaginable descents into barbarism. On France Inter radio, Dominique de Villepin, the former French Prime Minister, spoke on behalf of the most clear-sighted members of the bourgeoisie, who are nonetheless just as powerless as the rest: “We live in a more dangerous world without the rule of law because we are now in a world without rules and without international law. In other words, the law of the jungle, the law of the strongest, is what prevails everywhere in our world.”

A. Elberg, 25 October 2026