Realism, the Old Order, and the Strategic Foundation of American Power
Preview
Many realists believe the United States must manage a new multipolar world. Among them is the internationally known political risk analyst John Hulsman.
The true center of gravity of a republic lies with its citizens. Yet, a deeper question emerges. Can the republic itself sustain that role?
Editor’s note: Written as the emerging conflict involving Iran raises renewed questions about the endurance of American strategy.
From the series:
After the Winter — Collapse, Spring, and the New First Turning
Tom Raquer
Lt. Col. (Ret.), USAF • Southeast Asia Foreign Area Officer
March 9, 2026
The central strategic question facing the United States is not simply how to manage a multipolar world. The critical issue is whether the American constitutional republic itself possesses the political legitimacy necessary to sustain that role.
The Realist Debate
In moments of geopolitical crisis, many analysts turn to realism to explain states’ behavior.
Realism emphasizes power, national interest, and the balance of forces within the international system. It assumes that global politics is shaped primarily by competition among major powers.
Among contemporary strategists, John Hulsman has articulated a clear version of this approach. He argues that the international system is evolving toward multipolarity, in which several major powers shape global politics.
In this emerging order, Hulsman suggests that the United States still occupies a unique position. It is akin to being the “chairman of the board” within the international system.
From this perspective, the task of strategy is to manage the emerging multipolar environment while preserving stability.
Managing the Network
This is a classic geopolitical realist framework.
Its central questions concern the structure of the international system:
- Which regions are strategically decisive?
- How should power be balanced among major states?
- Which alliances must be maintained to preserve stability?
Within this framework, American strategy focuses on maintaining equilibrium across major geopolitical theaters.
The assumption underlying this approach is that the international system was created after the Second World War. Although it is evolving, it can still be managed.
The Missing Priority
Strategists like John Hulsman often argue that American grand strategy should start with the defence of the Western Hemisphere. After that, the focus should be on maintaining the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.
This hierarchy reflects a traditional geopolitical logic rooted in geography and power distribution.
Yet even this formulation leaves an important element unstated.
Before the Western Hemisphere, before the Indo-Pacific, lies a prior strategic reality. Before the management of any global system, there is a more fundamental concern. It is the survival and legitimacy of the American constitutional republic itself.
Without that political foundation, geographic priorities and global strategies cannot be sustained for long.
A Different Possibility
Yet another interpretation raises a more difficult question.
What if the strategic problem facing the United States is not simply managing a changing system?
What if the system itself is entering a period of structural transformation?
Across the international landscape, signs of strain are increasingly visible. Economic fragmentation is rising. Regional conflicts are intensifying. Domestic political divisions inside major powers are deepening.
Under such conditions, the challenge may not simply be maintaining the old order.
It may be navigating the emergence of a new one.
The Republican Variable
For the United States, this question becomes even more complex because the country is not merely a great power.
It is a constitutional republic.
The durability of American strategy depends not only on military power and geopolitics. It also relies on the political legitimacy of the republic itself.
The concept of the center of gravity, articulated by Carl von Clausewitz, helps clarify the issue.
Clausewitz described the center of gravity as the source of strength that holds a political system together.
For some states, that center lies in their military forces or ruling elites.
For a republic, but, the answer is different.
The true center of gravity lies with the citizenry whose consent sustains the legitimacy of the political system.
The Consent Gap
The emerging conflict with Iran illustrates why this principle matters.
Wars need political legitimacy.
Yet the Iran conflict began with remarkably limited public support. Early polling suggested that only about one in five Americans supported initiating military action against Iran. Far larger numbers opposed the action or remained uncertain.
This matters for strategy.
The center of gravity of a republic lies with its citizens. Starting a war without significant public support weakens its structure. This weakness is obvious from the outset.
Military ability is formidable, but the political endurance needed to sustain a prolonged conflict becomes uncertain.
In a republic, the durability of war relies on more than just weapons and alliances. It ultimately depends on the consent of the governed.
Two Strategic Lenses
This distinction produces two different ways of interpreting global events.
The geopolitical realist lens asks:
How should the United States manage the balance of power in the international system?
The republican lens asks a prior question:
Can the American republic politically sustain the burdens of managing that system?
Both questions matter.
But for a republic, the second question ultimately prove decisive.
Republic-First Realism
The framework emerging from this perspective be called Republic-First Realism.
It begins with a simple premise.
The purpose of American strategy is not the indefinite management of the global system.
The purpose of strategy is the preservation and stability of the constitutional republic itself.
From this perspective, the hierarchy of strategy becomes clearer:
- Preserve the legitimacy and cohesion of the American republic
- Keep stability within the Western Hemisphere
- Engage the wider international system where American interests need it
When strategy reverses this order, the burdens of global leadership can start to undermine the political foundation. This foundation sustains the republic itself.
Closing Reflection
A republic’s centre of gravity lies with its citizens. It can’t indefinitely manage the international system. This is especially true if the political cohesion of the republic begins to weaken.
A strategy that forgets this principle risks defending the international order. Meanwhile, the republic that sustains it gradually loses the strength needed to lead it.
Leave a Reply The Essential American Citizen Thanks you!