Talking about hegemony helps to gauge preferences of other states and how their behavior is likely to affect those of other states – leads them to independence and free movement from obligations in the international realm

HEGEMONY AND THE UNITED STATES The United States has arguably been and continues to be one of the most influential and powerful states in the international system. After the end of the Cold War, it is the only state to have had a truly global circle of influence and control in almost all aspects of international relations and global affairs. Mearsheimer argues that there are five assumptions that prove that the world is a realist one. I argue that three of these assumptions in context with the United States argue that not only are these assumptions correct, but a hegemon also goes one extra step than a state in doing so. Mearsheimer’s assumptions are somewhat hard-lined and definitive; however, for these assumptions, I will characterize factors into two groups: fundamental and sentimental. Fundamental factors include more realistic ones, for instance, military strength and wealth. Sentimental factors are inclined towards the more soft forms of power such as popular culture, international standing in global organizations, etc. Firstly, “The second assumption is that great powers inherently possess some offensive military capability, which gives them the wherewithal to hurt and possibly destroy each other” (Mearsheimer, 2001, ch. 10), this assumption gives an insight into the military and economic character of a hegemon. The United States has the largest and the most advanced military in the world. The United States government after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 changed its attitude towards military interventions, wars, and armed conflicts dramatically (Herring, 2008). The amount of wealth that goes into maintaining and developing such an enormous military is no small amount either. One observes that other great powers such as Russia and China also pour considerable funds into their military but not to such an extent as the United States does (Mearsheimer, 2001, ch. 10). This shows that for a hegemon, military strength and capability are of the foundational parts of ensuring complete hegemony. The United States clearly endorses this ideology and though diplomatic ways are preferred, it is good to know that it can fall back on its militaristic strength. The very fact the States endorsed the methodology of “preemptive war” and the message of “good versus evil” after 9/11 shows how much trust it had in its military and technology (Herring, 2008) (Ikenberry, 2011). This fundamental factor is one of the biggest reasons that ensure US hegemony to date. The amount of American troops offshore continues to be an intimidating factor for other states who may or may not have conflicting intentions (Mearsheimer, 2001, ch. 10). Secondly, the assumption that Mearsheimer works with is that “survival is the main goal of the state”. The United States embodies this perfectly and then some more. While the majority of the states focus on survival and basic economic growth, the United States has continued to experience unprecedented economic and financial growth. Its currency is widely accepted and demanded throughout the world, adding all the more to it. American investments and companies have risen dramatically since the 1990s. The amount of foreign investments made by Americans that are tied in other states is humongous and some technological and real estate giants make up large parts of it. On this account, even Liberals agree with the realists, that economic leverage is a clear and proper tool wielded by a state to gain power and position (Keohane, 1984). This is a fundamental factor mixed with parts of being a sentimental one. Since, economic might can be gained through channels such as cultural imports in form of films, fashion, and art, economic gains, and their use become subject to public opinion and become more sentimental in nature (Keohane, 1984). Finally, the assumption that is made is that “states are rational actors” is intensified in the case of hegemons (Mearsheimer, 2001, ch. 2). No hegemon will want to get tied down to agreements and alliances that it cannot ever break or which might someday curb its own ambition. Great powers do often lead towards a particular set of ideologies as witnessed during the Cold War, yet at the same time, they act with diplomatic tact in order to ensure their independence and free movement from obligations in the international realm.'' They are aware of their external environment and they think intelligently about how to maximize their prospects for survival. In particular, they try to gauge the preferences of other states and how their own behavior is likely to affect the actions of those other states, as well as how the behavior of those other states is likely to affect their own strategy. When they look at the different strategies that they have to choose between, they assess the likelihood of success as well as the costs and benefits of each one. Finally, states pay attention not only to the immediate consequences of their actions but to the long-term effects as well” (Mearsheimer, 2009). This describes how states care about their long-term goals and interests more than sticking to one set of methods and ideas. This helps in gaining sentimental solidarity with the masses. The United States which sees itself as the harbinger of “peace” and “democracy” throughout the world has used such tactics time and time again (Mathews, 2021). It uses the more sentimental ideas around democracy and liberty to justify its actions and gain a certain kind of power with its own and foreign populations. This can also be seen as a sort of hegemony of ideas and preferences where the majority of the people in the world would want US values and laws in their own states. Thus, we see that the United States is a hegemonic power in the 21st century. Although, how certain its future is, is still very much up for debate.