This study critically examines the "hydro-hegemony" framework in hydropolitical studies by pursuing two central questions: Is hydro-hegemony consistent with the conceptual history of hegemony, particularly within the (neo-)Gramscian tradition? And does it possess a clear and reliable explanatory and generalizable capacity for analyzing power relations in hydropolitics? To answer these questions, the research adopts a dual-track critique approach: Sartori’s (1970) framework of conceptual stretching for the first question and criteria for evaluating theoretical capacity for the second. In addressing the first question, the defining characteristics of hegemony in the (neo-)Gramscian tradition were compared with the formulation of hydro-hegemony to evaluate the legitimacy of extending hegemony from political science to hydropolitics. In the second stage, by evaluating the framework across three dimensions, conceptual coherence, power convertibility, and the position of water issues within the broader international context, and focusing on the transboundary river basins of the Jordan, Tigris-Euphrates, Nile, and Helmand, the framework's explanatory power and generalizability in analyzing hydropolitical interactions were examined. The findings indicate that, contrary to its aspiration to address Lasswell's classic governance questions, hydro-hegemony has been reduced to a tool for describing and classifying power relations. Accordingly, revising the framework requires changes across four principal axes: 1- shifting the analytical signifier from hydro-hegemony to “Blue Predominance”; 2- clarifying the definition of power and the position of the subject; 3- providing a procedure for resolving the power convertibility problem; and 4- interpreting hydropolitical interactions within the macro-international context alongside domestic constraints.