Follow us on social

51539958873_f719e5b4c9_o-scaled

US foreign policy and the American savior trap

The Ukraine crisis has highlighted Washington’s desire to police the world based on its collective hawkish whims.

Analysis | North America

From Israel to Yemen to China to Cuba, President Biden’s foreign policy has fallen flat with progressives and proponents of restraint more broadly, as he continues some of former President Trump’s worst policy initiatives. Surprisingly (and thankfully), however, Biden continues to show restraint and a commitment to diplomacy on Ukraine and Russia, despite a flurry of outlandish hawkishness from all sides of the foreign policy establishment in Washington.

While Biden’s diplomacy-first approach and his wariness at preemptive coercive action are welcome, the debate about U.S. policy towards Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and Russia more broadly is stuck in a false myth of American exceptionalism — but  it’s not unique. Instead of grappling with the limits of U.S. power globally to influence, cajole, and/or coerce other countries into changing their behavior, Washington is fighting with itself on how best to saber-rattle rather than advance diplomacy and conflict termination. 

For years I’ve watched as the Democratic establishment, in particular, has sought to use Cold War-era Russophobia as a political cudgel to show it was tough on national security. During the Trump years, this toughness centered on U.S. election interference.  It was merely a side note for most Democratic-aligned politicians and advocates that there appear to have been as many U.S. counterintelligence investigations into Saudi Arabia’s and the United Arab Emirates’ interference with and attempts to influence the 2020 election outcome, as there were with regard to Russia.  

The fervor of the debates presaging the passage of a  law back in 2017 sanctioning Russia, North Korea, and Iran for purported election interference and other nefarious activities is back: Putin only knows and responds to force so we must act quickly to take preemptive action to punish him for his interference in our democracy potential plot(s) to further invade/takeover/destabilize Ukraine before he can destabilize us further carry out his plot(s). “When the United States faces a real threat, we have an obligation to respond. So far, [our] response to Russia has fallen far short. That ends with this legislation,” then-Rep. Elliot Engel said at the time.

 Then, as now, the question has been about what Washington should “allow” Putin to do, and how these punitive actions by the United States are essential to stopping this dangerous man. 

The problem with framing U.S. policy questions as ”do we allow Country A to do X to Country B?” is that it eliminates the agency of other actors and the wide-ranging historical context of any given situation. Perhaps worse, particularly in our era of 30 second soundbites and nonstop newscycle, it also creates an inflated public perception that the United States stopping whatever bad thing is happening is only a matter of will and strength, not a question of capability, strategy, or responsibility. Instead, working people are sent push notifications depicting entire nations as dangerous enemies and painting an urgent (most often false) choice before U.S. policymakers in response to a crisis: military or coercive action to “stop it” or do nothing at all. 

This false binary of Washington constantly having to respond and intervene in global crises, in most cases militarily, or doing nothing seems almost manufactured by Washington given its regularity, but really it occurs because the U.S. government approaches the world through the lens of crisis management — that indispensable nation policing the world — rather than pursuing strategic ends other than (delusional) dominance. Focusing on only addressing indicators of instability, fragility, and conflict once it has reached the point of international attention keeps the United States on the backfoot, with little capacity to act proactively rather than reactively.  

What we’re seeing recreated in Washington’s debate about Ukraine, in the seemingly scathing disdain commentators on the left and right have laid upon people who dare urge giving diplomacy time to work, is the same dynamic that has led to the expansion of Washington’s endless post-9/11 wars to dozens of countries, and the continuation of the cold wars waged during that conflict, some now under the guise of counternarcotics programming.

It’s also reflected in the Biden administration’s overarching focus of building an anti-China coalition, most recently exemplified in the establishment of AUKUS trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. All of these policy decisions are rooted in the assumption that any potential threat to U.S. military and economic dominance is a threat that is best addressed proactively by preventative warfare and broad unilateral, as well as international, sanctions. It doesn’t matter that these moves are provocative and serve to convince other nations that war is coming, in turn resulting in their foreign policy and society further militarizing in response. Policymakers fail to understand how U.S. actions are influencing or could influence other countries at their own peril

This is the hard reality of geopolitics you may say at this point. Geopolitics, which is based on power, dominance, and supremacy, but it’s really just a euphemism for imperialism. The idea that the United States can only prosper if it dominates and determines the rules of the game is only true if you are only concerned about the CEO bonuses of multinational corporate, oil, and war manufacturers. Otherwise it just means more billionaire grift on the backs of working people across the world. So long as these determining factors dominate the perception of national security in Washington, the U.S. government will continue to serve the interests of the few, not the many.


President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris meet with national security advisers to discuss the situation in Afghanistan, Thursday, August 19, 2021, in the White House Situation Room. (Official White House Photo by Erin Scott)
Analysis | North America
Trump Joint Base Andrews
To photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump walks with Col. Paul R. Pawluk, Vice Commander for the 89th Airlift Wing, before boarding Marine One at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, U.S., June 21, 2025. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno

Trump: We 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear program, and now, 'peace'

Middle East

President Donald Trump told the American people tonight in a brief address to the nation that Iran's nuclear program has been ""completely totally obliterated" after U.S. airstrikes on Iran overnight into Sunday morning, Tehran time.

He congratulated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who launched Israel's strikes against Iran on June 13 and has been asking for U.S. assistance ever since. "We have worked as a team like no team has worked together before."

keep readingShow less
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo), Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.)  Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
Top Image Credit: Top photo credit: Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo) (Gage Skidmore/Flickr); Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.)(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect); Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)(Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons)

The Capitol Hill Republicans against US war with Iran

Washington Politics

Even as polling indicates that a majority of Trump voters don't want to go to war with Iran on behalf of Israel, it’s been difficult to change GOP minds on Capitol Hill.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t strong conservative voices trying to do just that.

keep readingShow less
Nato-scaled
Official Opening Ceremony for NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Summit 2018 in Brussels, Belgium. (Shutterstock/ Gints Ivuskans)
Official Opening Ceremony for NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Summit 2018 in Brussels, Belgium. (Shutterstock/ Gints Ivuskans)

The 17 Ukraine war peace terms the US must put before NATO

Europe

In the run up to the NATO Summit at The Hague next week, June 24-25, President Donald Trump and his administration should present a clear U.S. plan for peace in Ukraine to the European and Ukrainian governments — one that goes well beyond just a ceasefire.

While it is understandable that Trump would like to walk away from the Ukraine peace process, given President Vladimir Putin’s intransigence and now the new war in the Middle East, he and his team need to state clearly the parameters of a deal that they think will bring a lasting peace. Walking away from the effort to end the war prematurely leaves Washington in continued danger of being drawn into a new crisis as long as the U.S. continues to supply Ukraine with weapons and intelligence.

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.