The White House and Immoral Liberalism in the Anarchic Structure of International Relations
Over two centuries after the founding of the United States, the country’s history has been persistently marked by violence and bloodshed. In the past century—especially since abandoning its isolationist policy—American foreign policy has increasingly reflected signs of bullying, military intervention, invasions, war-mongering, and the imposition of destruction and terror on other nations. This trajectory began with the ruthless genocide of Native Americans and the inhumane exploitation of African slaves during the slavery era. It then continued with classical warfare such as the Vietnam War and has persisted into the modern era through high-tech and unconventional interventions in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Moreover, the U.S.’s indirect involvement in violent actions and instances of modern-day holocausts, such as in Gaza perpetrated by the far-right Israeli regime, is another manifestation of these policies. A brief evaluation of the White House’s conduct reveals a long list of violent actions, criminal undertakings, and false promises.
A closer analysis of the United States’ historical behavior in international relations reveals that the White House and Congress have persistently and structurally followed a pattern of disregard for negotiations, international agreements, diplomatic cooperation, and even instances of complete surrender by adversaries. This trend, clearly visible over past decades, affirms the instrumental nature of U.S. engagement in international relations—governed solely by its strategic and geopolitical interests.
Contemporary documents and events offer ample evidence of this behavior. For example, the trade negotiations with the People’s Republic of China—initially aimed at ending the trade war—ultimately collapsed under Washington’s broad tariff regime and intensified economic pressure. In the geopolitical crises of Libya and Iraq, the U.S. pursued unconstructive and interventionist approaches that not only led to regional instability but also weakened global confidence in multilateral solutions. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with the Islamic Republic of Iran, achieved after years of diplomatic negotiation, was another example. The U.S. withdrawal from this agreement exposed the country’s unreliability and disregard for international commitments.
In the case of the Ukraine war, the military and financial support offered by the U.S. to President Zelensky, despite its outward appearance, has been driven more by geopolitical calculations against Russia than by genuine support. This assistance has been conditional and has fluctuated over time. Even U.S. relations with traditional allies such as the European Union, Canada, and Mexico have shifted from strategic cooperation to arenas of economic pressure, punitive tariffs, and diplomatic tensions. Historically, examples such as U.S. support for Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, the Noriega incident in Panama, and the fate of Muammar Gaddafi after complying with Western demands, clearly demonstrate the destabilizing and chronically unreliable nature of American foreign policy.
Taken together, these examples point to a fundamental conclusion: relying on or trusting the political structure of the United States is, at best, a strategic mistake and, at worst, a catastrophic miscalculation. Regardless of party affiliations or superficial domestic policy changes, U.S. foreign policy remains fundamentally defined by national strategic and economic interests. Legal obligations, moral principles, and the proclaimed values of democracy and human rights are tactically employed as negotiable instruments rather than genuine commitments.
A prominent manifestation of this approach is the deep and organized influence of powerful lobbying groups, especially the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), on U.S. foreign policy. These institutions systematically direct U.S. foreign strategy in favor of specific interest groups. As a result, rather than fostering policies grounded in shared global interests or international law, we witness the rise of unilateralism, interventionist policies, and increasing regional and global instability.
Within this context, countries with costly experiences of engagement with the U.S. are compelled to adopt comprehensive and resilient strategies to safeguard national sovereignty and independence. These strategies include strengthening popular support for government, developing independent military deterrence capabilities, building a robust and self-sufficient economy, and maintaining a firm commitment to social justice and civil rights domestically. Such policies not only enhance national resilience against external threats but also create a foundation for sustainable and endogenous development.
