The United States at crossroads: Between proactive renewal and historic decline
In April 2024, the American RAND Corporation published an extensive analytical report titled "Sources of Renewable National Dynamics." The researchers addressed the structural challenges facing the United States, warning of the risks of decline and loss of global standing if proactive national renewal is not undertaken. This report represents a significant shift in the approach of American think tanks to the issue of the rise and decline of major powers, not only in terms of implicit recognition of the decline phase, but also in presenting a historical and forward-looking model for studying how to restore effective national power.
The report reflects growing concern in American decision-making circles that the United States' competitiveness is no longer guaranteed considering domestic and international changes.
The report is based on the premise that the rise and fall of major powers is not a historical exception, but rather part of recurring cycles subject to multiple factors, most importantly structural adaptation and the ability to renew during moments of transition. Considering this hypothesis, the RAND team reviewed a number of historical experiences in which great powers experienced relative decline before succeeding—or failing—in regaining the initiative.
These experiences include Britain in the Victorian era, the United States during the Progressive Era in the late nineteenth century, the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and China during its transitional periods. The study sought to draw general lessons from these experiences that would help understand the potential for American national renewal before it is too late.
The report argues that the proactive renewal of any great power cannot occur without a minimum of subjective and objective conditions, including internal social consensus, flexible political institutions, a productive and innovative private sector, and the state's ability to utilize its resources strategically.
It also notes that successful renewal requires a clear recognition of the crisis, not merely cosmetic or defensive rhetoric, as denial often leads to further decline. In this context, the report calls for the need to overcome the sharp partisan divisions in the United States, which it views as a real obstacle to any radical reform. In a systematic approach, the report identified nine key indicators deemed essential for measuring a state's ability to launch a proactive national renewal process. These indicators are:
Sustainable resilience: This refers to a society's ability to adapt to crises and transformations without losing its cohesion or dynamism.
Sovereign capacity: This is the state's ability to preserve the well-being of its people while ensuring protection from external threats.
Freedom of international decision-making: This refers to a state's ability to act externally in accordance with its own interests, without dependence on other powers or coercive alliances.
Military power: This refers to the possession of deterrence tools and operational superiority in various arenas of conventional and unconventional conflict.
Alliances: The extent to which a state can build a cohesive and effective network of allies based on shared interests, rather than dependence or extortion.
Economic power: This refers to the ability to influence the global economy through GDP, production, exports, and the ability to innovate.
Market dominance: This refers to control over global market mechanisms, especially in vital sectors such as technology, energy, and finance.
Cultural power: This refers to the ability to influence global thought patterns and values through the media, education, and the arts. Technological supremacy: This refers to leadership in technological innovation, including artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, and cybersecurity.
The report indicates that the United States, despite the challenges, still retains some of the strength needed to rebuild its global position, but it urgently needs a radical review of its economic, social, and educational policies. It also emphasizes that the time available for this transformation is narrowing, and that delaying the launch of the reform process could lead to irreversible consequences, especially in light of the rapid progress achieved by other powers, such as China, in the areas of trade, technology, and geopolitics.
The report does not deny the United States' vast resources, but warns that the lack of internal consensus, the escalation of partisan divisions, and the erosion of trust in institutions could empty these resources of their substance and render them unable to fulfill their role in revitalizing the nation. It also indicates that the greatest challenge lies not only in regaining military or economic supremacy, but in renewing a national vision that unites Americans around a common goal and reshapes the relationship between state and society based on justice, efficiency, and innovation.
While the report acknowledges that successful cases of proactive renewal are rare in history, it insists that the United States still has a chance to achieve this if it takes serious, thoughtful, and courageous steps. It also emphasizes that renewal is not merely a response to external decline, but rather a voluntary act that requires collective awareness and leadership capable of addressing the public with a language of frankness and responsibility, not one of reassurance and condescension.
In this sense, the report is not merely an analytical document, but rather an early call for the need to preempt decline with comprehensive reform initiatives stemming from within and drawing on America's historical legacy of overcoming crises. This warning—issued by one of the most important American research institutions—may be an indication of a shift in the ruling elite's awareness of the magnitude of the challenges facing their country, and a belated realization that progress is only sustainable for those who dare to review and renew.
Hasan Dajah is professor of strategic studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Jordan News
5 hours ago
- Jordan News
French Foreign Minister: We Are Determined to Recognize the State of Palestine - Jordan News
French Foreign Minister: We Are Determined to Recognize the State of Palestine French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stated on Saturday that France is determined to recognize the State of Palestine, reaffirming the country's commitment to a two-state solution. اضافة اعلان In an interview with the French channel LCI, Barrot commented on the latest developments in the Middle East, specifically addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. He highlighted that 500 Palestinians were killed and nearly 4,000 injured during food distribution operations in Gaza in May 2025, describing the deaths as a "disgrace and an affront to human dignity." Barrot stressed that France and Europe are ready to contribute to ensuring the proper distribution of food in Gaza. Since May 27, Israel and the United States have been carrying out a limited aid distribution plan outside the framework of the United Nations and international organizations. Reports indicate that Israeli forces have opened fire on Palestinians lining up to receive aid, forcing them to choose between starvation or being shot. As of last Wednesday, the Gaza Ministry of Health reported that 549 Palestinians had been killed and over 4,066 injured while trying to access these "Israeli-American aid centers." Barrot emphasized that there is no justification for the continued Israeli attacks on Gaza and reiterated: 'We are determined to recognize the State of Palestine. This will happen within a joint framework that encourages all parties to create the conditions necessary for the establishment of this state.' On May 22, 2024, Norway, Ireland, and Spain officially announced their recognition of the State of Palestine, effective May 28. Prior to that, eight EU countries had already done so: Bulgaria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, the Greek Cypriot Administration, and Sweden. To date, 149 out of the 193 UN member states have recognized the State of Palestine.
Ammon
11 hours ago
- Ammon
Trump's Army?
Ammon News - By: Timothy Snyder TORONTO — It is a truism that authoritarian regimes stand or fall on the loyalty of the security forces, and US President Donald Trump has left little to chance since returning to the White House. His defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, immediately purged a half-dozen top generals, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and in early May ordered a 20% reduction in the number of four-star generals and a 10% cut in lower-ranking generals. But it was a speech to troops a month later, at a base named after a Confederate general, that revealed most clearly Trump's conception of national security and the role of the armed forces in ensuring it. He made no mention of the world today, addressed no common American interest that might necessitate national defense, and expressed no concern about threats from China or the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And whereas US presidents typically speak of individual heroism as evidence of a country worthy of defending, Trump said nothing about cherished Constitutional rights such as freedom of expression and assembly, and not a word about democracy. America did not exist in Trump's speech. Instead, Trump used US military history to advance a cult to himself. Great battlefield achievements became deeds performed for the pleasure of a leader who then invokes them to justify his own permanent power. Military glory becomes a spectacle into which the leader can inject any meaning. That is the fascist principle that Trump understands. All politics is struggle, and he who can define the enemy can stay in power. But whereas historical fascists had an enemy without and an enemy within, Trump only has an enemy within. That is why, immediately after joining Israel's attacks on Iran, he hastily declared victory – and a cease-fire. The world is too much for him. The army is just for dominating Americans. The enemy was identified in Trump's comparison of Americans seizing undocumented migrants in 2025 with the courage previous generations demonstrated fighting in the Revolutionary War, the two world wars, Korea, or Vietnam. Charging a trench or jumping from a plane is of course very different from ganging up on a graduate student or bullying a middle-aged seamstress. But here we see Trump's purpose: preparing American soldiers to view themselves as heroes when they participate in domestic operations against unarmed people, including US citizens. In his speech, Trump portrayed himself as more than a president. He repeatedly mocked his predecessor ('You think this crowd would have showed up for Biden?'), summoning soldiers to defy the fundamental idea that their service is to the Constitution, not to a person. Such unprecedented personalization of the presidency suggests that Trump's authority rests on something besides an election, something like individual charisma, or even divine right. Soldiers should follow Trump because he is Trump. Most Americans imagine that the US Army is here to defend us, not to attack us. But Trump used the occasion to goad soldiers into heckling their fellow Americans, to join him in taunting journalists, a critical check on tyranny who, like protesters, are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Trump was teaching soldiers that society does not matter, and that law does not matter. Only he matters, and he 'loves' soldiers so much, 'We're giving you an across-the-board raise.' This is the way a dictator speaks to a palace guard or a paramilitary. We are witnessing an attempt at regime change, rife with perversities. It has a historical component: We are to celebrate the Confederate traitors like Robert E. Lee, who rebelled against the US in defense of slavery. It has a fascist component: We are to embrace the present moment as an exception, in which all things are permitted to the leader. And of course it has an institutional component: Soldiers are meant to be the avant-garde of democracy's demise, whose job is to oppress the leader's chosen enemies – inside the US. Describing migration as an 'invasion,' as Trump did in his speech, is meant to blur the distinction between his administration's immigration policy and a foreign war. But it is also meant to transform the mission of the US Army. If soldiers and others are willing to believe that migration is an 'invasion,' they will see those who disagree as enemies. And this is exactly what Trump sought to achieve when he portrayed elected officials in California as collaborators in 'an occupation…by criminal invaders.' The US military, like other American institutions, includes people of various backgrounds. It depends heavily on African-Americans and non-citizens. Trying to transform it into a cult of the Confederacy and a tool to persecute migrants would cause great friction and gravely damage its reputation, especially if US soldiers kill US civilians. (There is also the risk that provocateurs, including foreign ones, try to kill a US soldier.) Trump would welcome and exploit such situations. He wants to turn everything around. He wants an army that is a personal paramilitary. He wants the shame of our national history to become our pride. He wants to transform a republic into a fascist regime in which his will is law. But what do US soldiers want? Trump's speech was a highly curated affair, with audience members selected on the basis of their political views and physical appearance. Four days later, however, the military parade Trump staged in Washington – honoring the Army's 250th anniversary and his own birthday – was widely described as a 'flop,' in which some 6,600 soldiers in combat fatigues walked, not marched, past a sparse crowd. As spectacles of military glory go, Pyongyang or Red Square it was not. I wasn't there. Like at least four million other people in the US that day, I was at one of the anti-Trump 'No Kings' rallies held in some 2,100 cities and towns across the country. It was the largest single-day political protest in US history, dwarfing attendance at Trump's parade and proving that a democracy exists only if a people exists, and a people exists only in individuals' awareness of one another and of their need to act together. This awareness is Trump's worst enemy. Timothy Snyder, the author or editor of 20 books, holds the inaugural Chair in Modern European History at the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Toronto and is a permanent fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna.
Ammon
11 hours ago
- Ammon
The United States at crossroads: Between proactive renewal and historic decline
In April 2024, the American RAND Corporation published an extensive analytical report titled "Sources of Renewable National Dynamics." The researchers addressed the structural challenges facing the United States, warning of the risks of decline and loss of global standing if proactive national renewal is not undertaken. This report represents a significant shift in the approach of American think tanks to the issue of the rise and decline of major powers, not only in terms of implicit recognition of the decline phase, but also in presenting a historical and forward-looking model for studying how to restore effective national power. The report reflects growing concern in American decision-making circles that the United States' competitiveness is no longer guaranteed considering domestic and international changes. The report is based on the premise that the rise and fall of major powers is not a historical exception, but rather part of recurring cycles subject to multiple factors, most importantly structural adaptation and the ability to renew during moments of transition. Considering this hypothesis, the RAND team reviewed a number of historical experiences in which great powers experienced relative decline before succeeding—or failing—in regaining the initiative. These experiences include Britain in the Victorian era, the United States during the Progressive Era in the late nineteenth century, the Soviet Union in the 1980s, and China during its transitional periods. The study sought to draw general lessons from these experiences that would help understand the potential for American national renewal before it is too late. The report argues that the proactive renewal of any great power cannot occur without a minimum of subjective and objective conditions, including internal social consensus, flexible political institutions, a productive and innovative private sector, and the state's ability to utilize its resources strategically. It also notes that successful renewal requires a clear recognition of the crisis, not merely cosmetic or defensive rhetoric, as denial often leads to further decline. In this context, the report calls for the need to overcome the sharp partisan divisions in the United States, which it views as a real obstacle to any radical reform. In a systematic approach, the report identified nine key indicators deemed essential for measuring a state's ability to launch a proactive national renewal process. These indicators are: Sustainable resilience: This refers to a society's ability to adapt to crises and transformations without losing its cohesion or dynamism. Sovereign capacity: This is the state's ability to preserve the well-being of its people while ensuring protection from external threats. Freedom of international decision-making: This refers to a state's ability to act externally in accordance with its own interests, without dependence on other powers or coercive alliances. Military power: This refers to the possession of deterrence tools and operational superiority in various arenas of conventional and unconventional conflict. Alliances: The extent to which a state can build a cohesive and effective network of allies based on shared interests, rather than dependence or extortion. Economic power: This refers to the ability to influence the global economy through GDP, production, exports, and the ability to innovate. Market dominance: This refers to control over global market mechanisms, especially in vital sectors such as technology, energy, and finance. Cultural power: This refers to the ability to influence global thought patterns and values through the media, education, and the arts. Technological supremacy: This refers to leadership in technological innovation, including artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, and cybersecurity. The report indicates that the United States, despite the challenges, still retains some of the strength needed to rebuild its global position, but it urgently needs a radical review of its economic, social, and educational policies. It also emphasizes that the time available for this transformation is narrowing, and that delaying the launch of the reform process could lead to irreversible consequences, especially in light of the rapid progress achieved by other powers, such as China, in the areas of trade, technology, and geopolitics. The report does not deny the United States' vast resources, but warns that the lack of internal consensus, the escalation of partisan divisions, and the erosion of trust in institutions could empty these resources of their substance and render them unable to fulfill their role in revitalizing the nation. It also indicates that the greatest challenge lies not only in regaining military or economic supremacy, but in renewing a national vision that unites Americans around a common goal and reshapes the relationship between state and society based on justice, efficiency, and innovation. While the report acknowledges that successful cases of proactive renewal are rare in history, it insists that the United States still has a chance to achieve this if it takes serious, thoughtful, and courageous steps. It also emphasizes that renewal is not merely a response to external decline, but rather a voluntary act that requires collective awareness and leadership capable of addressing the public with a language of frankness and responsibility, not one of reassurance and condescension. In this sense, the report is not merely an analytical document, but rather an early call for the need to preempt decline with comprehensive reform initiatives stemming from within and drawing on America's historical legacy of overcoming crises. This warning—issued by one of the most important American research institutions—may be an indication of a shift in the ruling elite's awareness of the magnitude of the challenges facing their country, and a belated realization that progress is only sustainable for those who dare to review and renew. Hasan Dajah is professor of strategic studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University
