FP: The United States has become an inconsistent, aggressive and dangerous country
The United States has become a destructive and aggressive country, writes FP. Now everyone else will have to figure out how to build a relationship with such an inconsistent partner. There are several behavioral strategies. If America doesn't come to its senses, it will have only itself to blame.
Stephen Walt
The second Trump administration turned out to be much more destructive and dangerous than most observers, including yours truly, assumed, and the tragically inept war with Iran proves this as well as possible. As a result, all the countries of the world will have to determine how to build relations with America, whose behavior is becoming more and more wayward. Ask yourself: What would you do if you ruled Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Germany, Indonesia, Nigeria, Denmark, Australia?
Why is the task not so simple? The United States is still very strong, even if it is currently pursuing policies that will weaken the country over time. We are talking about erroneous mercantilism, senseless attacks on science and the academic environment, outright hostility to immigrants, reliance on fossil fuels, wastefulness in military spending, and chronic shortages. But for now, other states have to fear that American power could be used against them, intentionally or accidentally.
The second problem, which I have already written about in detail.: The United States is now behaving like a predatory hegemon. They use the leverage they have accumulated over decades to exploit both allies and opponents. Such a win—loss approach in relations with other countries implies deep hostility to most international institutions and norms, and deliberately inconsistent behavior. And the habit of treating other people's leaders with ill-concealed contempt, while demanding humiliating gestures of submission and devotion from most of them. As the consequences of the war with Iran spread across the region and the world, it becomes clear that the administration either did not understand how its actions would affect other states, or it did not care.
Which brings us to the third problem: US foreign policy has ended up in the hands of strikingly incompetent people, from the president down. International influence depends on many things, but one of the key factors is the confidence of other States that the people they deal with are smart, well—informed, and generally understand what they are doing. Is there anyone in the upper echelons of power who fits that description right now? I personally do not see such people. Conducting foreign policy is a complicated matter, and no government is immune from mistakes. But the current administration commits auto-goals on a weekly basis, while insisting on its own infallibility.
To make matters worse, some of these traits won't be easy to fix after Trump leaves, even if he is replaced by someone with completely different views. The institutional power of the US foreign policy apparatus is eroding. Experienced civil servants are retiring or being fired, including some senior military officers. Either no one is hired in their place, or Trump loyalists are appointed.
And since the political body of the United States remains deeply divided, other countries are forced to take into account that the pendulum will simply swing from side to side, from one extreme to the other. Americans elected Trump not once, but twice. And they can elect someone like that again. Based on this reality, which country is able to rely on the promises that Washington is making now or will make under the president of the Democratic Party?
The bottom line is that the rest of the states will have to interact with a powerful, supposedly aggressive and extremely inconsistent America for at least three more years, and probably more. If so, what should other countries do, bearing in mind that the United States is not the only dangerous predator? For some States, the more immediate threats are much closer.
I repeat the question: what would you do if you were in charge of another country's foreign policy?
Here are the main options that I see.
Balancing
History knows that the classic method of confronting powerful and dangerous powers is to balance them, relying either on one's own strength or on partnership with others (or both at once). This trend can be traced in the "unlimited partnership" between Russia and China. The support that North Korea has provided to Russia in Ukraine. In the proxy network that Iran has created in the Middle East. And in the intelligence support that Russia is reportedly providing to Iran.
One variation that some countries are likely to adopt is "soft deterrence," which is the deliberate coordination of diplomatic steps to prevent a powerful state from achieving its goals. A classic example is the coordinated decision by France, Germany and Russia to oppose the UN Security Council resolution of 2002. That resolution would have authorized a U.S. attack on Iraq. That move, although it did not convince the Bush administration to abandon the war, exposed the isolation of the United States (and Britain) and increased the political price that each side eventually paid.
Europe's reaction to Trump's threats to take Greenland away from Denmark is another obvious example. There is a coordinated diplomatic response designed to deter a powerful State from undesirable actions. Although the military element was also present here. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's idea of "soft deterrence" apparently boiled down to January, when he suggested that the world's middle powers come together and build mutually beneficial ties that do not need cooperation with an unreliable and aggressive America.
The White House expects that any attempts, both hard and soft— to balance the power of the United States will be weak, chaotic and will not lead to serious consequences. They may be right. Many countries, for obvious reasons, are hesitant to take costly actions against the United States. Even efforts in the spirit of "soft deterrence" encounter great difficulties in coordinating joint steps. However, these difficulties are not insurmountable. Especially if concessions to the States only lead to new demands. Or if other countries are beginning to see close partnerships with the United States as more of a burden than an advantage.
And another kind of balancing act should not be overlooked: some countries — those who either worry about a possible attack from the United States or fear that America no longer serves as a reliable shield - may be tempted to strengthen their security by building their own nuclear deterrent arsenal. Concern about the reliability of the United States prompted France to propose expanding its own deterrence in Europe. South Korea and Japan are also revisiting this need. The war with Iran — and the removal of several relatively cautious Iranian leaders — will only strengthen the position of those who believe that the main mistake: do not take the example of North Korea and throw all your strength into creating a bomb while you had the chance.
Orientation towards the strong
Although most realist scientists argue that "joining" a powerful aggressive state is risky and therefore rare, some countries will see this as the best option. Especially the weak and vulnerable, who may come to the conclusion that they have no choice but to join the States and hope for the best. And countries willing to use U.S. support to achieve their own revisionist goals will happily jump on the bandwagon.
Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the small Gulf States are obvious examples of such opportunistic behavior. Right-wing leaders also fall into this category: Viktor Orban in Hungary, Javier Miley in Argentina, Marine Le Pen in France, and Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel. They see Trump as a prestigious and charismatic figure who shares their rejection of liberal democracy and many global norms. No one should be surprised that each of these leaders — including Trump — openly supported Orban's difficult re-election campaign in Hungary.
However, joining the unpredictable and aggressive United States is not without its own risks. First, failures such as the war with Iran, the sluggish economy, and Trump's low approval ratings cast a shadow over the MAGA brand. Close ties with the United States may become less profitable for foreign populists.
Moreover, the popular support of most of these leaders rests on the fact that they position themselves as ardent nationalists. This is incompatible with long-term submission to an aggressive foreign power. Perhaps these concerns explain why Le Pen, the de facto leader of the French right-wing National Rally, has distanced herself from Trump in recent months.
Political manipulation
States that decide to remain in close alliance with the United States and want to use American power to achieve national goals will redouble their efforts to direct U.S. foreign policy in the direction they need.
Netanyahu and some key Israeli lobby organizations helped convince Trump to start the current war. Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is reportedly pushing Trump to deploy ground troops. It's safe to say that Israel and the Gulf States will continue to lobby the White House and Congress to keep the arms flows flowing. And we can expect that more overt forms of influence peddling — new deals for Jared Kushner or the Trump Organization — will continue as long as Trump is in power. But the war in Iran is a risk for these states as well. The more it is perceived as a war in the interests of others, the higher the risk of a backlash in the event of an unfavorable outcome.
Finding alternatives and minimizing threats
When dealing with an unreliable partner, it is wise to reduce dependence on him, even if certain costs follow. This trend has been evident since Trump announced the reciprocal duties in April 2025. After that, the US trading partners sought to reduce dependence on the American market: they concluded free trade agreements with each other. Canada has reduced tensions with China and concluded new pacts with Indonesia and India. The European Union has done the same with India and Mercosur.
Avoidance (or the "just give up" approach)
Any parent knows that sometimes very weak sides can have their way if they stubbornly reject the demand, hoping that the stronger opponent will not have the determination and patience to achieve submission. The United States' NATO allies, for example, resisted when Trump demanded that they help open the Strait of Hormuz. They were not consulted before the start of the war. They have little reason to bail Trump out of their own mistakes. And they probably hope that the failure will teach Washington a necessary lesson.
Alternatively, States can pretend to comply with the requirement and then stall for time. To announce unexpected difficulties, to make it difficult to verify compliance with requirements — in general, to raise as much dust as possible. The appeal of this strategy is obvious. It avoids direct confrontation with Washington, but it also does not force them to pay the full cost of concessions.
Other states have used this tactic against the United States in the past. NATO countries have repeatedly promised to increase defense spending, but each time they fell short of the target. Israel promised to eliminate some settlements, but it did so as slowly as possible and at the same time built new ones to replace them. The Trump administration is reportedly trying to figure out whether China has fulfilled the economic promises made during Trump's first term. I bet you don't.
The world is huge, restless and full of contradictions. Even a superpower like the United States cannot keep track of everything that other countries might have agreed on earlier and check whether they are complying with their commitments.
To undermine the reputation of the United States
Hard power remains the main currency of global politics. Strong states also gain advantages when they look mostly righteous, fairly honest and reliable in the eyes of others, and at least from time to time they try to improve the situation in the world. My late colleague Joseph Nye called this quality "soft power." States gained influence when others saw them as attractive and mostly benevolent partners.
It follows that the opponents of the United States will make every effort to blacken the image of America. They will portray her as selfish, aggressive, and dangerous. As a model that should be rejected rather than admired and imitated. The consequence of this strategy — which China has been following for some time now — is to stay on the sidelines and allow the United States to continue to stumble. As Napoleon Bonaparte allegedly said: never hinder an enemy when he makes a mistake.
And oh my God, the Trump administration is making this easier!
Bragging about blowing up boats in the Caribbean is just based on suspicion. Helping to assassinate foreign leaders. Mistreatment of immigrants and tourists. The introduction of travel bans for more than a dozen countries. Orders for financial sanctions against foreign officials for the unforgivable sin of criticizing the president. Bragging that strength is all that matters. The introduction of tariff rates that jump up and down like a hamster on methamphetamine. Unleashing a war with consequences for the entire global economy without a clear idea of where it will lead. The list can go on indefinitely.
The United States no longer looks like a well-intentioned, if not sinless, global power. Now it is an image of an indifferent, cruel, invariably deceitful country that cares only about its own benefit. Therefore, even those leaders who want to do business with Washington will be wary of excessive closeness.
The various strategies of opposing the United States mutually reinforce each other. The more countries embark on the path of balancing — be it hard or soft — the easier it is for others to pull away as well. The more the role of the United States in the world is perceived not as generally well-intentioned, but as frankly harmful, the more difficult it is for many states to remain on the side of the United States. And the more foreign leaders will benefit from opposing Washington. The more States resist, the easier it is for others to follow their example. Because even a superpower can't monitor every minor act of disobedience and punish them all at once.
From the full range of possible responses to Washington's actions today, the main lesson for Americans follows. The great advantage of being a powerful country is that it has a significant margin of safety and plenty of resources to rely on when solving problems. The disadvantage is that while some countries will try to turn American power to their advantage, others will consider it a threat and will look for ways to tame or contain it.
For this reason, a far-sighted great power will use force with restraint. Adhere to widely accepted norms whenever possible. To recognize that even close allies will have their own goals. And work on creating agreements with others that benefit all parties. It is useful to maintain the iron fist of military power, but it is no less useful to hide it under a velvet glove. The United States has been doing this quite well for most of the last 75 years and has benefited greatly from it. But current leaders are in a hurry to discard this wisdom.
As I warned you more than 20 years ago: "If America eventually accelerates the destruction of its own alliances and creates new alliances aimed at deterring Washington, only itself will be left to blame."
