Washington’s attempt to “run the world” reflects the grotesque surplus of ego, greed, illusion, vanity, and fantasy that overwhelms America’s imperial city. Even during the Cold War, when the U.S. could claim to lead the “free world”—which, of course, included many very unfree regimes—Washington was rarely in control. Remember Cuba and Vietnam, China and Egypt, India and Iran, Cambodia and Haiti. Remember tens of thousands of American lives lost, billions in Americans’ earnings wasted, and Uncle Sam’s reputation regularly ravaged.
Where is the U.S. in control today? Allied arrogance and recklessness in expanding NATO and ignoring Russian security interests led to Vladimir Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine. He bears responsibility for his action, but he reacted to American and European misbehavior, leaving allied officials, too, drenched in Ukrainian blood. Washington’s proxy war remains one mistake away from full-scale conflict, with Moscow unlikely to strike only so long as it believes it is winning. Yet Ukraine, along with European governments whose militaries would be rounding errors in any conflict, demand that Washington escalate American involvement.
The Middle East once seemed vital to U.S. policymakers. The region’s oil resources were important. Israel was vulnerable. The Soviet Union was threatening. No more. All those justifications have expired. Washington has no reason to intervene in Shia–Sunni hostilities, especially on behalf of a totalitarian state like Saudi Arabia, which lags China, Iran, and Russia in human rights. Israel is a nuclear power well able to defend itself. As the latter follows increasingly authoritarian and brutal policies against Palestinians, Washington should back away. Europeans and others most dependent on Gulf trade should confront the Yemeni quasi-blockade, which was triggered by Israel’s murderous war against Gaza civilians.
Asia, which contains the world’s most populous and prosperous nations other than America, matters far more globally than Europe or the Middle East. Yet Asia’s breadth makes it even more difficult for Washington to influence, let alone control. Consider North Korea, which has become a nuclear power despite the insistence of six presidents that it must not acquire nukes. Regional specialists widely agree that the North is currently expanding its nuclear arsenal and developing ICBMs capable of targeting the U.S. homeland. Pessimists fear that Russia might pay for artillery ammunition and missiles by assisting Pyongyang in these and other areas.
The People’s Republic of China poses an even greater challenge. Just as Washington is supreme in the Americas, the PRC wants to reign in Asia. The U.S. is determined to remain a Pacific power, but that doesn’t mean it can “run Asia.” After all, it is far more expensive to project power thousands of miles away than to deter intervention from such a distance. Moreover, the region will always matter more to China than America.
Which inevitably limits U.S. options. Beijing’s bullying tactics against the Philippines and Vietnam, in particular by pressing its territorial claims, deserve criticism, but do not warrant war by America. Nor does the U.S. have a vital interest warranting full-scale conventional and potential nuclear conflict with China over Taiwan. Washington should work with friendly countries to discourage Chinese military action, but avoid fighting over anything other than truly vital interests.
Indeed, Washington’s campaign to build an anti-PRC military coalition risks spreading any conflict. Beijing is unlikely to attempt to conquer either Japan or South Korea—doing so would be beyond China’s present capabilities and would not offer future benefits commensurate with the costs, especially if Tokyo or Seoul develop nuclear weapons. Yet joining the U.S. against the PRC would immediately make Japan and the Republic of Korea military targets. Imagine the ROK allying with Washington over Taiwan: Chinese missiles could rain down upon South Korean bases while North Korean troops made a second attempt at reunification, this time backed by China and nuclear weapons.
Of course, it is impossible for the U.S. to assume away the possibility of war. Military action might become absolutely necessary. But only as a last resort, debated by the American people, and fought on their behalf, not for allies or other interests. The purpose of U.S. alliances is to increase U.S. security. That means joining and sustaining relationships which make war less, not more, likely for America. Unfortunately, most of Washington’s security guarantees act as transmission belts rather than firebreaks to war. For example, NATO expansion has added a gaggle of military midgets—the Baltic and Balkan states, most recently North Macedonia and Montenegro, for instance—which multiply U.S. obligations while doing nothing to aid America. Even Sweden and Finland, though more capable militarily, do nothing to protect Americans who are obligated to fight for them against a nuclear-armed power over territory with little connection to American security.
The Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia are even less relevant to America’s defense. There Washington’s wars have spread geopolitical instability, sectarian conflict, humanitarian crisis, and Islamist terrorism. The U.S. also has routinely sacrificed the values that it claimed to be defending. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died in religious and political strife triggered by the U.S. invasion. Washington armed and enabled both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to kill Yemeni civilians. America’s 20-year Afghan misadventure turned rural lands into a charnel house and converted residents to the Taliban’s cause. Why do American forces remain scattered about Iraq and Syria, serving no recognizable American security interest? Almost unimaginable was Biden’s fixation on turning the U.S. military into a modern Janissary corps, a de facto bodyguard for the brutal and corrupt Saudi royals. So much for the administration’s commitment to democracy and human rights.
Finally, what could be worse than war between the U.S. and the PRC? Never before have two major conventional powers possessing nuclear weapons fought one another. The consequences would be incalculable. It is hard to imagine a scenario in which China would attack America. Instead, the issue is maintaining Washington’s Asian dominance. That has value, to be sure, but is it worth the possible destruction of both nations, America’s allies, and the global economy? Perhaps privileged Washington solons imagine such a conflict would advance their interests. Maybe it would. But would it serve Americans doing the fighting, suffering, and dying? Certainly not. War is not just any other foreign policy tool. It is uniquely destructive and must be used only when there is no alternative.
Unfortunately, foreign policy so far has not been a major campaign issue. Although Biden pretended to be “running the world,” he fooled few Americans. Most pay little attention to the arrogant cant that overflows Washington unless their money—and lives—are being ostentatiously squandered. Nevertheless, Biden’s withdrawal and Vice President Kamala Harris’s likely nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate will reset the campaign. Harris could scarcely do worse than the president and can reject Biden’s reflexive interventionism, applied everywhere but Afghanistan. She appears to be less enthused with Washington’s tight embrace of Israel’s Netanyahu government, though she has shown little difference on other issues.
Donald Trump and J.D. Vance will have to redirect their campaign to focus on Harris. There is greater hope of change from Trump if elected, although during his first administration he often retreated from promises to disengage from needless conflicts. During a second term, however, he would be more likely to rely on aides committed to serve him rather than the Washington Blob. Moreover, he would be backed by Vance, who appears even more committed to reversing some of the Biden administration’s most reckless policies, such as those in Europe. There would still be plenty of danger, especially from confrontation with both China and Iran. Even there, however, Trump might be more inclined to seek diplomatic deals.
What Americans most need from the next president is someone who does not hope to “run the world.” Doing so is impossible. Doing so competently and effectively would require a double miracle. The next president should serve and protect Americans, while nudging the world toward a better future. After decades of misguided and costly wars, Washington should choose peace and allow America to again become a normal country.
