There are two types of power. A state’s hard power – its military and economic strength – and soft power, its positive image in the world, the ability to persuade without firing a shot.

A country needs both to be effective in its international relations. One alone is not enough. Often the second kind, the soft power, is more useful as a country cannot impose its will continuously and on every issue by the force of arms.

For many years, America was the undisputed leader in both. However, in recent years, it has been losing its soft power, which relies on the image it projects to the world. When this image is positive, when the country projects ideals, values, and principles, when its democratic system functions well, when there is internal harmony, cultural progress, and economic development, when it possesses a top-flight educational system, especially at the university level, then its will becomes more easily accepted by the rest of the world.

The opposite happens when its image is negative, when it does not present a good example to the world – as Pericles would say – but rather gives the image of a country that has lost its way. And, unfortunately, America in recent years has increasingly presented this image, with serious consequences both internally and externally.

There are many examples. Take the recent example of Donald Trump’s interview with three black women journalists during a panel at the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) Convention.

After first insulting the journalist who bravely reminded him of the slurs he has uttered against African Americans, instead of any other kind of answer, he questioned whether Kamala Harris is really black.

“I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn Black and now she wants to be known as Black. So, I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?” (note: her father is black and her mother is Indian).

What is this? What kind of racism is he expressing? How unacceptable are these statements for a former and potentially future president of the U.S.? And how much soft power does America lose with these absurdities?

In a commentary published last week – ‘What Has the Endless Cycle of Bloodshed in the Middle East Yielded?’ – I wrote the following: “Blinken, the U.S. Secretary of State, stated that U.S. officials did not know and were not involved in the assassination attack. I don’t know how believable that is. But if they didn’t know, all the worse.”

A few days ago, The New York Times had an analysis by Mark Landler in this spirit (see its front page) titled ‘Fears of Wider Mideast Conflict Deepen, With U.S. Seen as ‘Not in Control’

Landler writes: “On Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said the United States had not been involved in, or even informed of, the operation in Tehran, which the Iranian government swiftly blamed on Israel. To some, Mr. Blinken’s statement confirmed a dangerous power vacuum in the region.”

I summarize by saying that the image of the U.S. in the world is rapidly deteriorating due to the unacceptably low level of attention being paid by political leaders. And this creates a worrying power vacuum that allows various regional bullies to do as they please. Dangerous things.