The end of US global dominance presents an opportunity for America

The era of American hegemony, which dominated global affairs since 1945 and reached its peak after 1991, is coming to an end. And rather than lament this shift, the U.S. and the world should embrace the opportunities it presents.

For too long, the U.S. has shouldered the burden of global policing, tied to the notion of maintaining a “rules-based international order” that is increasingly irrelevant. The end of this era opens the door to a more just, prosperous and realistic world order — one that is based on balancing global powers rather than dominating them. It’s time for the U.S. to adopt a grand strategy of restraint, rooted in realist international relations theory, and reshape its role in a multipolar world.

The decline of American hegemony has been a gradual process, accelerated by major events but always rooted in deeper structural trends. The rise of other global powers has challenged the ability of the U.S. to control world affairs. The myth that Washington believed after the Cold War, that it could dictate global governance indefinitely, was always an illusion. Overreach in military interventions, coupled with domestic and international challenges, have weakened American primacy.

The international system that the U.S. helped build after World War II — a system of multilateral institutions and liberal norms — has shown cracks for years. This was not a neutral or benevolent framework; it was a structure that served American interests, often at the expense of other nations.

Now, with rising competition from other powers, the idea that Washington can — or should — continue to act as the global enforcer is not only unrealistic but also counterproductive. Clinging to hegemony leads only to more costly interventions and strategic failures, as evidenced by recent decades of U.S. foreign policy.

The end of American hegemony is not a catastrophe but an opportunity to adopt a more restrained and realistic approach to international relations. A grand strategy of restraint, as grounded in realist theory, recognizes the limitations of U.S. power and the dangers of overextension.

Realism — with its focus on national interest, the balance of power and the inevitability of competition among states — offers a clear path forward. Rather than attempt to dominate or impose an ideological framework on the world, the U.S. should focus on protecting its core interests while avoiding unnecessary entanglements.

In a multipolar world, the U.S. should be one power among many. The key to maintaining security and stability is not through imposing American leadership but through balance — engaging in selective competition and cooperation with other powers, without trying to dominate them. This shift away from hegemony opens space for new coalitions and more flexible partnerships based on mutual interest rather than unilateral dominance.

As China rises and challenges American influence, it is tempting for policymakers to frame the situation as a new Cold War, with China replacing the Soviet Union as the primary adversary. But this is a flawed analogy. The Cold War was a unique ideological and military struggle between two superpowers, and trying to apply that same logic today only invites dangerous escalation. The U.S. should not attempt to “contain” China in the traditional sense of the word, which would only provoke confrontation without serving U.S. interests.

Instead, Washington should pursue a strategy of “blunting” — using its power and influence to prevent any one nation from dominating key regions or setting the rules of global governance. This realist approach acknowledges that while China’s rise cannot be stopped, it can be managed. The U.S. should work with allies and regional powers to ensure that Beijing’s ambitions do not come at the expense of American security or that of its partners. By focusing on maintaining a balance of power, the U.S. can prevent Chinese domination without overextending itself in futile efforts at containment.

Blunting is not about imposing America’s will on the world, but about ensuring that no other power can impose its will. This strategy recognizes that the global order is shifting, and Washington’s role should be one of prudent management rather than aggressive intervention. Realist restraint means recognizing that the U.S. cannot and should not be involved in every conflict, nor can it dictate terms to every rising power.

The end of American hegemony liberates the U.S. from the yoke of global policing, which it has borne to its own detriment for far too long. A grand strategy of restraint would prioritize America’s core national interests, avoiding the costly and unnecessary interventions that characterized much of its foreign policy in the post-Cold War era. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrate the dangers of overreach and the futility of trying to impose democratic values through military means.

Restraint, however, is not isolationism. The U.S. still has critical interests that require engagement, particularly in key regions like the Indo-Pacific and Europe. But engagement must be guided by a sober assessment of American power and the realistic limits of influence. Realist theory teaches that international relations are governed by competition among states, and in a multipolar world, the U.S. must pick its battles carefully, choosing to intervene only where its vital interests are at stake.

This strategic recalibration would allow America to play a smarter role in world affairs — working with allies when necessary, but not leading every charge. The notion that any instability anywhere in the world threatens U.S. security is no longer tenable, nor is the belief that the U.S. must bear the burden of global governance alone.

The shift away from American hegemony opens the door to a more sustainable world order that reflects the multipolar character of contemporary international politics. This transition is a natural evolution of the international system, and the U.S. must adapt by embracing restraint and realism as the guiding principles of its foreign policy.

In a more multipolar world order, smaller powers and regional actors will have greater agency, and multilateral cooperation will be driven by shared interests rather than imposed norms. The U.S. has an opportunity to lead by example instead of through coercion. By focusing on blunting the more extreme ambitions of illiberal powers like China, Washington can help shape a world that is more stable and equitable.

The age of U.S. dominance is over, but that is not a cause for alarm. It is a chance to build a more just and prosperous international system — one grounded in the realities of power politics and the recognition that restraint, rather than overreach, is the path to sustainable security.

Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy, and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C.