US Actions Abroad Questioned: Rogue State Behavior Alleged

US Foreign Policy Under Scrutiny After Iran Conflict

Recent actions by the United States, particularly concerning the conflict with Iran, have sparked significant debate about the nation’s role and power on the global stage. Harvard professor Stephen Walt argues that the U.S. may be acting like a “rogue state,” a term traditionally applied to nations that threaten international peace and security.

Limits of Military Might Highlighted

In an article for Foreign Policy, Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School, suggests that while the U.S. remains powerful, its current policies could weaken it over time. The conflict with Iran, he believes, reveals limitations in American military power. “We can blow lots of things up, but we can’t necessarily dictate political outcomes,” Walt stated. He also raised doubts about the competence of current U.S. foreign policy leadership, noting that the war appeared ill-planned and improvised.

Diplomacy Lacks Professionalism, Experts Say

The perceived lack of professional diplomacy has also drawn criticism. Walt pointed to recent talks where an Iranian delegation, led by their foreign minister with a PhD and comprised of seasoned government and security veterans, met with a U.S. team that included the vice president, a real estate billionaire, and the president’s son-in-law. This, he described, was “amateur hour diplomacy.” Such approaches, Walt explained, lead to predictable failures, as seen in the pre-war negotiations and subsequent talks in Islamabad.

Haphazard War Planning and Unforeseen Consequences

Planning for the war itself was also criticized as haphazard. A key oversight, according to Walt, was the failure to seriously consider Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, a move they had long prepared for and announced they would take if attacked. The U.S. leadership apparently expected a swift collapse of the Iranian regime. This miscalculation, Walt argued, demonstrates poor planning. The consequences of this war, he noted, extend globally due to economic impacts, and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, imposing significant costs worldwide.

Defining “Rogue State” Behavior

Walt explained that a “rogue state” is typically seen as a threat to international peace and security. By initiating a war with global economic repercussions, the U.S. has, in his view, threatened the interests of many nations. He also cited a disregard for international norms and law, calling the war “illegal.” The assassination of civilian leadership, a departure from a long-standing norm of not targeting each other’s leaders, further contributed to this perception. Walt compared this behavior to that previously expected from countries like North Korea or Libya under Gaddafi.

Allies View U.S. as Impulsive and Predatory

Around the world, Walt believes the U.S. is now viewed as impulsive, erratic, and predatory. The shifting U.S. goals in the conflict highlight its impulsiveness. The predatory aspect, he elaborated, represents a shift where the U.S. seeks to take advantage not only of adversaries but also of allies. Policies like tariffs aimed at harming other economies and attempts to acquire territories are seen as predatory actions. This makes the U.S. unpredictable and often hostile to its allies, including NATO members and the European Union.

Difficulty in Achieving Political Outcomes

Translating battlefield gains into lasting political outcomes in a conflict like the one with Iran is extremely difficult, Walt stated. He pointed to a complete lack of trust between the U.S. and Iran, making any peace deal assurances unreliable. Furthermore, the conflict may have empowered a more hardline Iranian regime by elevating hardliners to prominence after the removal of top leadership. The constantly shifting U.S. war aims also make it unclear what a political settlement would even look like from an American perspective.

Tactical Wins vs. Strategic Losses

While the U.S. possesses military superiority, enabling it to destroy targets within Iran, this has not guaranteed strategic success. In fact, the war appears to have increased support for the Iranian government, reversing a previous trend of waning public approval. The ability to inflict damage does not equate to dictating political outcomes, especially when the adversary, Iran, retaliated as threatened by closing the Strait of Hormuz. This action has inflicted significant economic costs on the global community, with little prospect of immediate resolution.

Global Responses: De-risking and Shifting Alliances

In response to U.S. actions, countries are adopting strategies like “de-risking.” This involves finding new trade partners and moving away from fossil fuels, a transition the U.S. is not actively pursuing. Nations like Spain and Italy have distanced themselves from the U.S. to avoid association with what they see as an impulsive and failed war. Consequently, some countries are increasingly looking towards China as a more stable and responsible player in global affairs. This could lead to an enhancement of China’s political standing as American influence wanes.

Rebuilding Trust and Future Prospects

Walt acknowledged that the U.S. is unlikely to emerge from this situation in an improved position. The nation faces a more hardline Iranian regime, a potentially increased incentive for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons, and allies who question American judgment. He suggested that the best path forward for the U.S. involves cutting a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and repairing relations with disillusioned countries. However, he stressed that a clear win is improbable.

Hope for a Return to “Benevolent Hegemon”?

Addressing the question of whether the U.S. can return to being a “benevolent hegemon” after the Trump presidency, Walt expressed that rebuilding trust will be challenging, especially given Trump’s previous elections. He recommended stopping the influence of those who led the U.S. into its current foreign policy missteps, which includes reforming the foreign policy establishment and holding responsible officials accountable. Demonstrating accountability, he noted, could help restore international confidence.

Challenges to Rebuilding Global Image

While past U.S. administrations have seen an improvement in global image following leadership changes, Walt believes it will be harder this time. Allies may worry about the pendulum swinging between extreme policies. This uncertainty leads them to hedge their bets and reduce their reliance on American support. The election of new leaders who communicate and act differently could help, but the underlying concern about policy volatility remains a significant hurdle for rebuilding strong alliances.

Source: Has the United States become a rogue state? | DW News (YouTube)