Follow us on social

google cta
Financial Times ponders the end of American Exceptionalism

Financial Times ponders the end of American Exceptionalism

A deep dive from this establishment staple relies on veterans and groups like Quincy pondering a new way ahead.

Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

Here’s a rule that can save you a lot of time:  Nine out of every ten essays written about America’s role in the world aren’t worth reading.  Make that nineteen out of twenty.  Endlessly reciting the same clichés about the imperative of American global leadership while drawing on the same historical “lessons” – appeasement bad, assertiveness good --  they argue for perpetuating a world that no longer exists.  

Writing in the Financial Times, Katrina Manson offers readers that one in twenty – maybe one in a hundred.  The title of her essay is “Has America Had Enough of War?”  The body of her piece provides an abundance of evidence to answer that question in the affirmative.  Crucially, much of that evidence comes in the form of testimony offered by those who have fought our recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

Manson calls attention to a “new wave” of critics daring to “question the militarization of U.S. foreign policy” and by extension the “moral underpinnings and claims that the world requires America as its leader.”  She correctly identifies the real culprit as American Exceptionalism — or at least the perversion of American Exceptionalism that came to prevail in post-Cold War Washington when members of the establishment became infatuated with the nation of the U.S. as “indispensable nation.”

Manson identifies the Quincy Institute as the vanguard of a movement offering restraint as a relevant principle for organizing U.S. policy going forward.  Thanks for the hat-tip, Ms. Manson.  We are doing our best to avert further needless wars.


(shutterstock/bumbe dee)|
google cta
Asia-Pacific
nuclear weapons testing
A mushroom cloud expands over the Bikini Atoll during a U.S. nuclear weapons test in 1946. (Shutterstock/ Everett Collection)

Nuke treaty loss a 'colossal' failure that could lead to nuclear arms race

Global Crises

On February 13th, 2025, President Trump said something few expected to hear. He said, “There's no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. . . You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons . . . We’re all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive.”

I could not agree more with that statement. But with today’s expiration of the New START Treaty, we face the very real possibility of a new nuclear arms race — something that, to my knowledge, neither the President, Vice President, nor any other senior U.S. official has meaningfully discussed.

keep readingShow less
Witkoff Kushner Trump
Top image credit: U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff looks on during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., December 29, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

As US-Iran talks resume, will Israel play spoiler (again)?

Middle East

This Friday, the latest chapter in the long, fraught history of U.S.-Iran negotiations will take place in Oman. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi and President Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff will meet in an effort to stave off a war between the U.S. and Iran.

The negotiations were originally planned as a multilateral forum in Istanbul, with an array of regional Arab and Muslim countries present, apart from the U.S. and Iran — Turkey, Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia.

keep readingShow less
Trump Putin
Top image credit: Miss.Cabal/shutterstock.com

Last treaty curbing US, Russia nuclear weapons has collapsed

Global Crises

The end of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), the last treaty between the U.S. and Russia placing limits on their respective nuclear arsenals, may not make an arms race inevitable. There is still potential for pragmatic diplomacy.

Both sides can adhere to the basic limits even as they modernize their arsenals. They can bring back some of the risk-reduction measures that stabilized their relationship for years. And they can reengage diplomatically with each other to craft new agreements. The alternative — unconstrained nuclear competition — is dangerous, expensive, and deeply unpopular with most Americans.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.