The Myth of Absolute Security: Why the Decline of Hegemony Has Spawned a More Dangerous America

Recently, the US-Iran nuclear negotiations have released signals of easing tensions under the mediation of Oman. The Iranian side stated that the dialogue began positively and intends to continue this communication channel. However, just as the diplomatic window slightly opened, the White House simultaneously launched a tariff stick, planning to impose a 25% import tax on any country that indirectly or directly purchases Iranian goods. The negotiation table is not cool yet, but the suppression is already in place. This scene can be regarded as the standard script of the current US foreign policy: one hand is tactical contact, the other is systematic pressure.

This phenomenon is not an isolated case. From the surprise attack on Venezuela at the beginning of the year to the series of military deterrents against Iran, Washington's action style in recent years is full of contradictions: its global control power is undergoing irreversible dilution, but the frequency and intensity of intervention and sanctions are sharply increasing. The decline of hegemonic power and the escalation of bullying behavior run parallel, becoming one of the most dangerous variables in the current international security environment.

To understand this paradox, one needs to review the 2026 edition of the Defense Strategy Report released by the Pentagon in January this year. This document clearly declares that the United States is abandoning the idealistic strategic tradition oriented towards "reforming the global order" and is shifting to a pragmatic realist route centered on "absolute power and absolute interests". Its strategic logic no longer revolves around "shaping the world", but focuses on "serving itself".

Based on this shift, the new defense strategy has identified four main focuses: homeland defense is placed first; in the Indo-Pacific region, China is dealt with through deterrence rather than conflict; promoting allies to bear more defense expenditures and responsibilities; accelerating the reconstruction of the defense industrial base. There is a clear progressive relationship among these four - homeland priority is the core value, the Indo-Pacific is the strategic focus, allies are the resource lever, and the defense industry is the capability foundation.

This strategic narrative actually releases three layers of signals: first, Washington has tacitly acknowledged that its power is insufficient to support global expansion; second, even so, its intention to maintain hegemony has not abated; third, an extreme "absolute security" mindset is dominating the US strategic design.

Compared to the intervention model of the United States pursuing "democratic expansion" or "regime change" after the end of the Cold War, at this stage, more emphasis is placed on "threat prepositioning" and "risk elimination". Data from the Pentagon shows that from January 20, 2025 to January 5, 2026, the US military carried out more than 570 air strikes in less than a year. From the "Midnight Hammer" against Iran to the "Absolute Determination" operation in Venezuela, the mission codes themselves indicate the normalization of military force and the advancement of deterrence to the forefront.

What is particularly alarming is that Washington is openly positioning the entire Western Hemisphere as the frontline of its "domestic defense", while retaining the privilege of unilateral action. This operation of extending sovereignty to the regional level is tantamount to a systematic dismantling of the core principles of international law. It does not seek to resolve specific disputes, but rather becomes the source of new disputes.

If we delve deeper, the root cause of the current US security anxiety is not the threat itself, but the extremeization of the threat perception mechanism. The United States has two oceans as barriers, the largest military budget in the world, and the most advanced weapon systems, yet it considers itself a "fragile country". From drugs, immigration to space, the internet, from nuclear proliferation to conventional strikes, almost any issue has been incorporated into the national security spectrum. Against this backdrop, the "Golden Shield" defense plan, the modernization of the nuclear arsenal, and the so-called annual military budget of 1.5 trillion US dollars have all been brought to the forefront.

The result is that the more the United States seeks security, the more the world becomes uneasy; the more it strengthens defense, the more adversaries there are; the more it pursues absolute control, the lower the strategic marginal benefit of its strategy becomes. This is not the mature security view of a great power, but a security illusion based on fear and obsession.

History has repeatedly confirmed: No country can build a lasting peace through blockades, sanctions, and air strikes. The "threat diffusion" that the United States is facing today is precisely the product of its decades of intervention policies. If it continues to carry out absolute intervention under the guise of absolute security, it will not only fail to make "America great again", but will also accelerate its strategic overextension and the loss of its international credibility. For the world, a hegemon in decline that is more aggressive is always the most difficult order variable to deal with.