Follow us on social

Puck-scaled

Biden must reject the pull of the American hegemonic mindset

The unipolar world is over, but it's taking some on both sides of the ideological spectrum a long time to admit it.

Analysis | Washington Politics

Since the dramatic failure of the Iraq War in the mid-2000s, much ink has been spilled about the path forward for American foreign policy. With total global hegemony shown consistently to be a high-cost and low-reward approach, U.S. policymakers have begun debates as to what kind of global strategy should replace that of the wreckage of the “War on Terror.”  

One of the more frequent rhetorical devices used by establishment actors to steer the narrative has been that of a “New Cold War.” But whether policymakers are speaking of a new bipolar competition or of the necessity of dominating all regions of the world for the security of a liberal world order, as potential future Defense Secretary Michelle Flournoy does, it is increasingly clear that the age of American expansionism under the guise of exceptionalism should be retired as obsolete.

Any attempts to resurrect U.S. unipolarity, be it through cold war rhetoric or any other alternative strategy, implies that both Russia and China as well as their minor allies are slotted firmly into the perpetual enemies’ camp. Beijing would be the most likely primary target of any such policy. The problem with such an approach is that 21st century China is nothing like the Soviet Union. While Beijing holds itself up as an alternative model to the United States, it does not seriously engage in exporting its values or ideology across the globe. Rather, it follows a model of autonomous and nationalist divergence from the post-Cold War consensus — something that holds no universal project in common no matter how many countries might decide to do something similar. 

In this world of less ideological great power competition, alliances cannot be assumed to be permanent, and neither can enemies. As Nixon bucked the Cold War assumptions by going to China to counter a common and more potent Soviet threat, so might a Biden or a future Harris administration have to swallow their pride and go to Moscow to open up previously closed diplomatic pathways with a country formerly assumed to be beholden to Beijing.

The competition for influence in the developing world is now between multiple countries, and is based on trade, resources, and developmental assistance. To remain competitive in such a multipolar environment the United States would do well to drop claims of universal values and move towards flexibility and upholding the sovereignty of smaller powers who feel threatened by larger rivals. This could be done with much less cost than present hegemonist strategies given the geographic advantages of U.S. naval power and its distance from the major potential conflict zones of rival powers. 

If the United States simply retains its economic dynamism and acts as a guarantor of international commerce, it becomes more of a potential partner to be wooed, rather than a potential threat to nations not allied directly with it.

A continuation of the geopolitical strategies considered “normal” in Washington for the past two decades, as may very well happen in a Biden administration, would freeze out diplomatic options that would otherwise be available to the United States as well as guarantee a dangerous escalation of great power tension. While an incoming Biden administration is taking a welcome second look at resurrecting the Iran deal, it should also consider that adopting a framework of perpetual animosity with Beijing or Moscow might make such diplomatic efforts more difficult to achieve. If Tehran can choose both a nuclear deal with the U.S. and be integrated into the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, however, it could very well increase its autonomy and neutrality in any great power rivalry rather than automatically taking the side of Beijing. 

A U.S. approach that prioritizes flexibility over dividing the world into camps of ideology will not have to make foreign policy decisions in an absolute “with us or against us” binary, and this flexibility will be a net gain for the United States given its inherent geographic advantages over its rivals. On the other hand, should policymakers in Washington insist on continuing the quest for world hegemony, or even just rebooting the Cold War in a new context, they risk squandering these vital assets in the multipolar world that is to come. To be first among many is better than to be a scorned and declining hegemonic force.


"His 128th Birthday" cover of Puck magazine, 1904. (public domain)
Analysis | Washington Politics
Trump steve Bannon
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump (White House/Flickr) and Steve Bannon (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Don't read the funeral rites for MAGA restraint yet

Washington Politics

On the same night President Donald Trump ordered U.S. airstrikes against Iran, POLITICO reported, “MAGA largely falls in line on Trump’s Iran strikes.”

The report cited “Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and critic of GOP war hawks,” who posted on X, “Iran gave President Trump no choice.” It noted that former Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz, a longtime Trump supporter, “said on X that the president’s strike didn’t necessarily portend a larger conflict.” Gaetz said. “Trump the Peacemaker!”

keep readingShow less
Antonio Guterres and Ursula von der Leyen
Top image credit: Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock.com

UN Charter turns 80: Why do Europeans mock it so?

Europe

Eighty years ago, on June 26, 1945, the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco. But you wouldn’t know it if you listened to European governments today.

After two devastating global military conflicts, the Charter explicitly aimed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” And it did so by famously outlawing the use of force in Article 2(4). The only exceptions were to be actions taken in self-defense against an actual or imminent attack and missions authorized by the U.N. Security Council to restore collective security.

keep readingShow less
IRGC
Top image credit: Tehran Iran - November 4, 2022, a line of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps troops crossing the street (saeediex / Shutterstock.com)

If Iranian regime collapses or is toppled, 'what's next?'

Middle East

In a startling turn of events in the Israel-Iran war, six hours after Iran attacked the Al Udeid Air Base— the largest U.S. combat airfield outside of the U.S., and home of the CENTCOM Forward Headquarters — President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire in the 12-day war, quickly taking effect over the subsequent 18 hours. Defying predictions that the Iranian response to the U.S. attack on three nuclear facilities could start an escalatory cycle, the ceasefire appears to be holding. For now.

While the bombing may have ceased, calls for regime change have not. President Trump has backtracked on his comments, but other influential voices have not. John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, said Tuesday that regime change must still happen, “…because this is about the regime itself… Until the regime itself is gone, there is no foundation for peace and security in the Middle East.” These sentiments are echoed by many others to include, as expected, Reza Pahlavi, exiled son of the deposed shah.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.