Harris Or Trump: The Unchanging Face Of US Foreign Policy – OpEd
“War, Life, and Nothing More”—this poignant observation by Oriana Fallaci, the renowned Italian journalist and historian, is also the title of her seminal work detailing the horrors she witnessed in Vietnam. Yet Vietnam was merely one stage in the long history of U.S. violence, far from the only instance of Washington’s penchant for war.
Since the dawn of the 21st century, the United States has unleashed widespread violence and instability across the globe. Indeed, in the spirit of Fallaci, one might aptly title the chronicle of U.S. foreign policy as “Interventionism, War, and Nothing More.” For the US, ensuring the loyalty of nations to the West has consistently trumped all other priorities. This objective has remained the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, whether under Democratic or Republican presidents—a goal for which the United States has shown an alarming readiness to go to war.
Many around the world are deeply concerned about the prospect of Trump’s re-election in the coming November. However, a closer examination of U.S. foreign policy history reveals that Trump’s policies are unlikely to be any more destructive than those of his predecessors or successors. There is little distinction in the willingness to resort to force, violence, and interventionism between Trump, Harris, and those who came before them. In 2001, Republican George W. Bush, in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, invaded and occupied Afghanistan, followed by an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.
These wars resulted in the deaths of 4.6 million people over the span of two decades. Democrat Barack Obama, in 2011, authorized military action against Libya, further destabilizing the African continent. In a blatant violation of international law, Republican Trump ordered the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s Quds Force. Finally, Democrat Joe Biden, by disregarding Moscow’s security concerns and pushing for NATO expansion, effectively turned Ukraine into a proxy in the conflict with Russia. Additionally, Biden escalated tensions with China by ignoring U.S. commitments under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and surrounding China with hundreds of military bases. He also launched a military strike against Yemen’s Houthis and ultimately became complicit in Israel’s war crimes and genocide by unconditionally supporting its massacres in Gaza.
The story of U.S. interventionism is long and intricate, marked by repeated instances where, under the guise of promoting human rights and democracy, the United States has violated the sovereignty of other nations. In 1953, the U.S. orchestrated a coup against the Iranian government, sowing seeds of resentment that years later culminated in the hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Tehran. Similarly, in the 1970s and 1980s, in response to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the U.S. funded and armed extremist groups, a policy that eventually led to the rise of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe in 2003, 2004, and 2005 further underscore the U.S.’s interventionist approach. To this, one must also add the United States’ economic coercion strategies, particularly secondary sanctions and Washington’s export control measures, which undermine the industrial and economic sovereignty even of its allies.
The historical record, combined with the establishment of 750 U.S. military bases worldwide, illustrates that whether Biden, Trump, or Harris occupies the White House, the United States’ primary objective remains the preservation of its global dominance and the loyalty of nations to the West. The only difference among these presidents lies in the methods they choose to maintain this dominance. Both Trump’s and Harris’s America will continue Washington’s hardline and aggressive stance toward China; both believe in Washington’s unconditional support for Israel and in granting extralegal immunity to Tel Aviv; both will seek to keep Europe dependent on the United States; and both will strive to maintain the monopolies of the current global order while resisting the demands of the “Global South.” It is important to remember that, despite initial optimism, it was Biden who irresponsibly handed Afghanistan over to the Taliban. Moreover, the Biden administration has continued, if not intensified, Trump’s hardline policies towards China and Europe. Biden’s continuation of the policy to normalize relations between Arab states and Israel while sidelining the issue of Palestine’s occupation also contributed to the current conflict in the Middle East.
Interventionism, war, and nothing more—these have been the enduring features of U.S. foreign policy since World War II. These are traits that U.S. presidents have neither the will nor the capacity to change. The United States perceives its absolute superiority in military power and its ability to coerce and exert violence as its most potent tools, and it does not hesitate to employ these tools, even when other options remain unexplored. Today’s global instability is the direct result of such a violent and interventionist foreign policy by a hegemon that is purportedly committed to providing global security. Therefore, whether Kamala Harris or Donald Trump becomes the next president of the United States, one principle in U.S. foreign policy will remain unchanged: the reliance on coercive measures and the use of force and violence as the first and most convenient option.
