The Triumphalism of Power as Diagnosis — Three Texts for One War

This analysis, titled "The Triumphalism of Power as Diagnosis — Three Texts for One War," was authored by Nayef Sha'aban on April 18, 2026. It examines the divergent interpretations of the Hormuz crisis and the broader decline of global hegemonic power through three distinct analytical lenses: the triumphalist, the structural, and the historical. 1. The Epistemological Conflict: Three Perspectives Sha'aban explores how a single geopolitical reality can produce contradictory yet internally consistent narratives. Triumphalism (James Howard Kunstler): A framework that interprets every event—regardless of outcome—as confirmation of inevitable victory. Sha'aban argues this functions as "ideological cover" for an era where traditional justifications like democracy or human rights have been replaced by raw intent. Structural Realism (Robert Pape): A diagnostic approach viewing the conflict through a zero-sum logic. While precise, Sha'aban contends it fails by assuming the United States is a "unitary rational actor," ignoring the internal fractures within Washington's decision-making apparatus. Historical/Khaldunian Analysis: A perspective that views current events as the latest iteration of late-imperial overreach, where overwhelming tactical power is paired with an evaporating strategic vision. 2. The Khaldunian Diagnosis: "Sultan al-Quwwa" Sha'aban applies classical Arab-Islamic concepts to describe the current state of the empire: Senescence and Collapse: Following Ibn Khaldun, Sha'aban argues the empire is losing its asabiyya (binding legitimacy). Naked Power: As legitimacy fades, the power turns to sultan al-quwwa (the naked exercise of force), striking with increasing violence but decreasing strategic coherence Internal Disintegration: Drawing on Malik bin Nabi, the text argues that hegemony collapses primarily through internal erosion that prevents a dominant power from converting military strength into sustainable political leverage. 3. Structural Fractures in Washington The analysis highlights that the "absence of a plan" in recent operations (e.g., Venezuela) is not a failure of planning, but a structural output of competing authorities: Competing Rationalities: Different centers of power—the presidency, the military, the security bureaucracy—operate on incompatible logics simultaneously. Multiple Voices: This internal fragmentation makes it impossible for allies to trust Washington, as an agreement made with one "voice" does not bind the others. 4. The Global Shift: "Routing Around" The most significant shift identified is the move from 20th-century confrontation to 21st-century structural bypass: Independence over Conflict: The Global South is not seeking to defeat the hegemon but to make the world less dependent on it. Operational Necessity: Crises like the Hormuz closure are accelerating alternative infrastructures. Bypass Mechanisms: Systems like mBridge replace SWIFT not by defeating it, but by making it unnecessary, while regional trade in non-dollar currencies simply stops requiring the dollar. The paper concludes that the states with the institutional coherence to recognize this fracture as an opportunity will be the ones to define the new global architecture.