The U.S. often supports a nation to act as a balance against a perceived threat. As time passes, that nation may grow in economic, military, and political power. Consequently, the assistance meant to protect U.S. interests can end up creating a future rival.
Geography and Strategic Inexperience
The United States has historically benefited from a unique geographical advantage. Bordered by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, it faced no immediate threats on its borders, unlike European powers such as Germany or France, which were forced to navigate complex continental rivalries. This natural buffer provided security but also contributed to a certain strategic inexperience, as the U.S. had little incentive to study the long and often brutal history of warfare, diplomacy, and statecraft that shaped Europe and Asia.
By contrast, nations like Britain, with its “divide and rule” approach, or Russia under Peter the Great, driven to secure access to both eastern and western seas, developed sophisticated strategies out of geographic necessity. Lacking similar pressures, the United States did not cultivate the same long-term strategic foresight. As a result, it often approached international relations with reactive, short-term thinking, making it particularly prone to learning slowly from the lessons of global history.
The United States’ “Power Balance” Approach
Historically, Britain engaged in continental Europe through a “balance of power” strategy, seeking to prevent any single state from becoming dominant and threatening British interests. Rather than pursuing direct conquest, Britain relied on alliances, coalitions, and diplomacy to maintain equilibrium among European powers. This approach shaped major conflicts from the 1700s to the 20th century, including wars against France, Germany, and Napoleon’s empire. The primary goal was to ensure that no single power could dominate the continent, thereby safeguarding Britain’s security and preserving its global influence.
In the 20th and 21st centuries, the United States has pursued a strikingly similar approach on a global scale. Acting as a “balancer,” the U.S. has sought to prevent regional or global hegemony while promoting a rules-based international order favorable to its interests. Lacking a long-standing strategic tradition in international affairs, the United States has often relied on reactive strategies, employing what can be called “checks and balances of power.” This approach involves supporting one country to counterbalance another and shifting support when former allies grow too strong or threatening. For example, postwar Germany and Japan, once adversaries, became U.S. allies through economic and military support—such as the Marshall Plan and industrial reconstruction—but later pursued more autonomous foreign policies.
This cyclical dynamic is evident in the Cold War and beyond. Early U.S. support for China was aimed at countering the Soviet Union, yet China eventually emerged as a major strategic competitor. Similarly, contemporary corporate strategies such as “China Plus One” illustrate a reactive approach in the economic sphere, aiming to reduce dependence on China while still benefiting from its manufacturing ecosystem, often creating new opportunities in countries like India. Such patterns highlight a broader feature of American strategy: short-term, reactive measures designed to manage power imbalances frequently produce unintended consequences, inadvertently nurturing future competitors. In essence, while the U.S. has successfully acted as a global balancer, its strategies often reflect immediate tactical needs rather than a coherent long-term vision.
The Asymmetry of U.S. Foreign Policy
U.S. foreign policy has historically been marked by asymmetry rather than genuine cooperation or mutual benefit. While Western textbooks often depict diplomacy in terms of win-win outcomes, peace, and shared gains, the reality has frequently involved the pursuit of submission or control. The United States has regularly pressured other nations to adopt its rules, policies, and economic frameworks, prioritizing its own strategic and economic interests over reciprocal partnerships.
The Philippines serves as a striking example. After World War II, the country boasted one of the highest per capita GDPs in Asia and closely mirrored U.S. laws, culture, and language. Yet despite this alignment, the Philippines remained economically dependent and politically constrained. Over time, U.S. pressures and exploitation generated resentment, ultimately provoking opposition and revealing the limits of American influence, even over ostensibly loyal allies. Similar patterns are evident in Latin America and the Middle East, where interventions and economic dominance have frequently produced instability and adversaries rather than enduring, mutually beneficial alliances.
Long-Term Consequences and Decline
The pattern of asymmetric domination and reactive balancing in U.S. foreign policy has generated significant long-term consequences, gradually eroding national strength and global standing. While military and economic leverage can yield short-term gains, the continual creation of new adversaries produces persistent security challenges. U.S. strategies often prioritize coercion and exploitation over mutually beneficial arrangements, resulting in alliances that are inherently unstable and prone to conflict.
A notable example is the post-World War II reconstruction of Japan. Initially, U.S. assistance aimed to foster a strong anti-communist ally, but by the 1980s, Japan’s remarkable economic growth had transformed it into a competitor. Its industrial and technological dominance—particularly in automobiles and electronics—produced large trade surpluses with the United States, threatening American industries and prompting calls for trade negotiations and protectionist measures. This illustrates how short-term strategic gains can evolve into long-term challenges, as former allies shift into economic or political rivals.
Even seemingly decisive U.S. policy moves, such as Nixon’s 1970s decoupling of the dollar from gold, highlight the paradox of this approach. While this moment reflected vulnerability, it also enabled the United States to sustain its pattern of asymmetric control for decades. Ultimately, reliance on coercion rather than cooperation undermines the sustainability of U.S. foreign policy, fostering cycles of opposition, tension, and insecurity that threaten long-term national interests.
The Pattern: Creating Enemies to Maintain Control
A recurring pattern characterizes U.S. foreign policy: the creation or identification of perceived threats, the support of counterweights or proxies to neutralize them, and the eventual perception of those allies as new threats once they assert independence. This cyclical approach reflects short-term tactical brilliance but long-term strategic fragility, demonstrating a consistent strength in technology and military tactics but a weakness in sustainable, coherent strategy.
Historical examples illustrate this dynamic. In postwar Europe, Germany was initially a key partner in reconstruction but later emerged as an independent actor with its own interests. In Asia, U.S.-backed allies such as Japan and China eventually evolved into strategic competitors, while in the Middle East and Latin America, nations like Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and the Philippines challenged American influence as they pursued independent paths. These cases underscore the limits of coercive or proxy-based policies: they may produce immediate gains but generate new adversaries over time.
Domestic political cycles often reinforce this pattern through short-term decision-making. For instance, President Obama promoted the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to strengthen U.S. economic and strategic influence in Asia. Yet, on his first day in office, President Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement, citing concerns over trade deficits, outsourcing, and potential harm to American workers. The pivot toward bilateral trade deals and protectionist policies exemplifies how domestic priorities can exacerbate the reactive, short-term focus of U.S. foreign strategy, perpetuating the cycle of creating allies who eventually become perceived threats.
America First and the Balance Between Intervention and Restraint
The United States’ military engagements in Iraq (2003–2011) and Afghanistan (2001–2021), along with its response to the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), illustrate the complex tension between immediate national interests and long-term strategic stability. Prolonged interventions can unintentionally cultivate future adversaries and perpetuate cycles of shifting alliances, demonstrating the risks inherent in reactive, short-term strategies. This historical pattern underscores the challenges of balancing national security with enduring geopolitical stability.
Donald Trump’s “America First” rhetoric reflects a modern form of isolationism. Historically, U.S. isolationism sought to avoid entanglement in foreign conflicts unless the nation faced a direct threat, a stance most prominent prior to World War II. In the 21st century, Trump adapted this principle to contemporary global dynamics, advocating for a foreign policy that prioritized domestic concerns over expansive international commitments.
This approach emphasized three key elements: reducing military interventions abroad, limiting involvement in multinational agreements—such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris Climate Accord, and the Iran nuclear deal—and prioritizing domestic economic and security interests. Trump and his supporters argued that previous strategies had overextended the nation’s resources, both in terms of finances and human lives, and that a more restrained foreign policy would better serve long-term national priorities.
By framing U.S. engagement through this lens, the “America First” approach highlights the enduring debate between interventionism and restraint, illustrating how historical patterns of reactive foreign policy continue to influence contemporary strategic choices.
Conclusion
The geographic security of the United States allowed it to grow without the strategic constraints that shaped other powers, fostering a confidence that at times verged on arrogance. Its foreign policy has often been reactive, responding to emerging threats in ways that unintentionally create adversaries. This approach is asymmetric, emphasizing dominance or control rather than mutual benefit, as illustrated by historical engagements in the Philippines, Latin America, and the Middle East. Over time, this cycle has gradually eroded national strength, even as the U.S. projects formidable technological and military power globally.
Under policy frameworks such as “America First,” long-term containment and strategic foresight receive less attention, heightening the risk that nations currently benefiting from U.S. support could become future rivals, particularly in Asia and the Middle East. The broader critique is that, despite its tactical and technological superiority, the United States consistently struggles to implement a coherent, enduring, and sustainable geopolitical strategy.