Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed in an Al Jazeera interview that messages have been exchanged with the United States during the ongoing conflict, but clarified that these do not constitute formal negotiations. Araghchi cited a deep lack of trust, rooted in Washington’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, and noted that Iran has not had a single positive experience negotiating with the U.S.

Messages continue to be routed through intermediaries. These communications are described as warnings and exchanges of position rather than genuine diplomacy. Iran has refused to engage with figures such as Jared Kushner and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff, viewing them as untrustworthy in light of the collapse of earlier agreements.

Araghchi is unambiguous: Iran has not responded to U.S. proposals. Trust, he asserts, stands at zero. Negotiations, in this context, appear almost redundant. For Tehran, talks have too often served as tactical pauses—moments the U.S. uses to regroup and reassert pressure.

Many observers now predict a decline in U.S. global hegemony alongside deepening internal dysfunction. Optimists argue that American economic strength and institutional resilience will allow adaptation. This is increasingly difficult to sustain. The United States no longer carries the weight it once did—politically, morally, or economically. The Trump era has amplified not strength, but resentment, inconsistency, and strategic drift.

The United States is experiencing what analysts describe as “pernicious polarization”—a deep, structural divide that has hollowed out democratic functioning and rendered legislative compromise nearly impossible.

The United States is experiencing what analysts describe as “pernicious polarization”—a deep, structural divide that has hollowed out democratic functioning and rendered legislative compromise nearly impossible.

This polarization is not incidental; it is actively driven by elite manipulation, media ecosystems, and an entrenched emotional hostility between political camps.

There is also a growing perception of a “dissolution of order.” Traditional political norms are eroding, reflected in protest movements like “No Kings” and widespread dissatisfaction with leadership. Beneath this lies a volatile mix of economic anxiety, racial tension, and unresolved federal-state conflicts.

READ: Most Americans want Iran war ended quickly, oppose ground troops: Polls

The economic picture compounds the crisis. National debt is projected to reach approximately 125% of GDP by 2026, severely constraining state capacity. Inflation—partly fuelled by protectionist tariff regimes—has eroded living standards, fuelling public discontent. At the same time, the U.S. risks losing technological leadership in critical sectors such as electric vehicles, drones, and artificial intelligence to China, which is rapidly consolidating itself as a dominant “electrostate.”

“America First” policies, designed for short-term political gain, are producing long-term geopolitical costs. Trade wars and coercive diplomacy have strained alliances and driven regions—particularly Latin America—closer to China’s orbit.

Globally, the U.S. is stretched thin. It faces simultaneous strategic pressures in the Middle East, East Asia, and Eastern Europe, creating the impression of overreach without coherence.

Globally, the U.S. is stretched thin. It faces simultaneous strategic pressures in the Middle East, East Asia, and Eastern Europe, creating the impression of overreach without coherence.

The attempt to manage multiple conflicts while maintaining global primacy has led some analysts to describe the U.S. less as a stabilising force and more as a “predatory rogue actor,” contributing to instability rather than containing it.

The more pessimistic view—what some term the “no hope” perspective—argues that the political, social, and economic fractures are too deep for conventional democratic repair. A profound internal reckoning—a “dark night of the soul”—may be inevitable. Yet others point to the enduring paradox of American power: despite recurring narratives of decline, the U.S. retains immense structural advantages—wealth, geography, food security, and its enduring capacity to attract global talent.

Even so, 2026 is widely seen as a geopolitical inflection point. The U.S. appears not merely to be reforming its global role, but actively unwinding the order it once constructed. The upcoming midterm elections could further destabilise an already fragile political landscape, particularly if economic hardship deepens. Increasingly, the U.S. finds itself in uncharted and dangerous territory, confronting the consequences of its own policy contradictions.

This uncertainty is starkly visible in its approach to Iran. Washington is attempting a complex; multi-layered negotiation strategy aimed at exiting direct military confrontation without appearing to concede ground. The demands placed on Iran—halting uranium enrichment, dismantling missile capabilities, securing maritime routes—require long-term compliance. Yet the U.S. simultaneously seeks a rapid military disengagement to satisfy domestic political pressures.

This contradiction is unsustainable. President Trump has suggested a possible exit within weeks, while expecting structural concessions from Iran that would take years to enforce—if at all. There is no credible framework to ensure compliance, nor any binding mechanism for international inspection. From Tehran’s perspective, these demands are not negotiation—they are coercion.

Meanwhile, Iran’s regional allies have escalated threats, forcing U.S. forces into a more fragmented and vulnerable posture. Disruptions to commercial shipping routes underscore the widening scope of the conflict.

Complicating matters further is the uneasy alignment between the U.S. and Israel. Their interests are not fully convergent. Israel may favour prolonged military engagement to neutralise perceived threats, regardless of global economic consequences, while Washington seeks a controlled disengagement.

READ: Reservists with PTSD pushed back into service as Israeli army nears collapse

The ideological backdrop to this tension is the notion of “Greater Israel” (Eretz Israel Hashlemah)—a far-right vision advocating territorial expansion into Palestinian and neighbouring lands. Though not official state policy in its entirety, elements of this ideology are embedded within Israel’s current governing coalition.

Settlement expansion in the West Bank and proposed projects in Gaza is widely regarded as violations of international law, undermining the viability of a Palestinian state. Critics argue that these actions amount to a de facto annexation strategy, cloaked in security rhetoric.

Such expansionist discourse also raises serious concerns about regional sovereignty, particularly with respect to Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. It intensifies instability in an already volatile region.

Israel’s heavy reliance on high-cost missile defence systems such as the Iron Dome also raises questions about long-term sustainability in the face of persistent, low-cost attacks. Military superiority, while overwhelming, is proving insufficient to secure lasting political stability.

Israel’s heavy reliance on high-cost missile defence systems such as the Iron Dome also raises questions about long-term sustainability in the face of persistent, low-cost attacks. Military superiority, while overwhelming, is proving insufficient to secure lasting political stability.

Persistent friction with groups such as Hezbollah, backed by Iranian resources, continues to drain Israeli capacity and complicate its strategic calculus. At the same time, unconditional U.S. support for Israel—military, financial, and diplomatic—has increasingly become a liability, inviting broader challenges to American influence in the region.

What emerges from this landscape is a fundamental truth: the idea of permanent, uncontested power is rapidly eroding. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East, where alliances shift rapidly, regimes falter, and power remains fluid and contested.

The region is defined not by stability, but by perpetual rivalry. Power is no longer absolute—it is provisional, negotiated, and constantly under threat.

Iran sustains its influence through networks of proxies and strategic depth. Israel seeks to convert military advantage into long-term dominance. The United States attempts to manage both while preserving its global role. Yet all three are discovering the same reality: power without legitimacy is brittle.

The illusion that military might and economic leverage alone can sustain global dominance is collapsing. The United States today commands power, but increasingly lacks legitimacy—the moral authority and political trust that once underpinned its hegemony.

The illusion that military might and economic leverage alone can sustain global dominance is collapsing. The United States today commands power, but increasingly lacks legitimacy—the moral authority and political trust that once underpinned its hegemony.

In a world that is fragmenting, decentralising, and resisting control, dominance without legitimacy is not merely unstable—it is unsustainable.

What we are witnessing is not just the decline of American power, but the end of an era in which power could operate without accountability. The emerging world will not be shaped by those who can impose order, but by those who can command consent.

And that is precisely where the United States is faltering.

OPINION: Iran holds the keys to victory in the war with USA and Israel

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

© Middle East Monitor