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
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

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.