U.S. Policy Between Principles and Pragmatism

It is said that Washington D.C., the federal capital of the United States, was built in the shape of a square, which symbolizes justice — far from accurate information, given its lack of justice. The symbolism of the square is contradicted by the reality of the situation. Looking back at U.S. foreign policy for the past 60 years, and considering all of the developments that have taken place in the international strategic environment caused by the Cold War, to unipolarity and up to the present day, the political observer can determine a group of elements that govern U.S. foreign policy.

The first is that U.S. foreign policy sets strategic goals based on a political doctrine from which no U.S. president — whether Republican or Democrat — has deviated. Change is limited to domestic policy, and if there is any modification to foreign policy, it is by way of accomplishing and pursuing goals, not changing them. Second, U.S. foreign policy is distinguished by dynamism in dealing with the outside world. Dynamism completely overlaps with pragmatism, which tends to govern U.S. politics. That is, it governs the United States’ ability to deal with the changing reality in a way that serves U.S. interests rather than that of “the other,” on the condition that this “other” does not announce that it is explicitly hostile or interfering with U.S. policy and that it does not prevent the realization of that policy, if it were capable.

The third element that distinguishes U.S. policy, in our view, is that it makes use of all means, techniques, cards, leverage and influence in order to accomplish its goals, whether legal according to international law or not. The end justifies all means in accordance with Machiavellian thought, the core of U.S. policy. The rule in this ideology is that success in achieving any goal simply gives it the force of the law. Here the researcher finds that no one has held the United States accountable for dropping atomic bombs on Japan, for killing more than a million Indonesians in the 50’s of the last century and likewise in Vietnam, or in the last decade for its wars on Afghanistan and Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of their souls.

The fourth element is the politics of holding one’s breath in punishing the enemy, i.e., toppling the enemy by exhausting it. This is done by laying political and economic siege to them, trying to confine them and condemning them through international organizations and platforms. Take, for example, the blockade and sanctions that the United States imposed on Cuba, Democratic Korea, the Islamic Republic of Iran and, subsequently, Syria. Despite the passing of several decades since some of those sanctions, the transformation of the international environment and political maps, and the succession of more than 10 presidents to the White House’s seat, the common denominator is the continuation of such political and economic siege.

We can conclude that betting on any change in U.S. policy towards the countries classified as hostile or enemy is a losing bet. As long as the United States remains the most prominent player on the international scene, this possibility bears no (not even a slight degree of) certainty. Here, the hope for structural or fundamental change in U.S. foreign policy relies on the capability of the greater rising powers or an international alliance of ascending powers. They must coalesce politically, economically and militarily so as to constitute a true, weighty force with global and regional scope — the only hope of bringing about a deep transformation in U.S. policy and thus in the rules of the international game.