In recent decades, the global order has undergone significant changes. The United States no longer stands as the sole dominant superpower, and this transformation carries profound consequences both within its borders and across the world.
It is debated in many ways, the reasons and factors that led the rise of US as Global leader.
The emergence of the United States as a global power was shaped by a combination of economic growth, political strategy, military strength, and historical circumstances. Here is a short overview of the key milestones in America’s journey to prominence:
Industrial Revolution: In the late 19th century, the United States experienced rapid industrialization, transforming from an agrarian society into an industrial powerhouse. The development of railroads, steel production, and manufacturing fueled economic growth and expanded its influence.
Territorial Expansion: The acquisition of territories, such as those gained during the Louisiana Purchase (1803) and the annexation of lands following the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), established the geographical and economic foundation for the country’s rise.
World Wars: America’s involvement in World War I (1917–1918) and World War II (1941–1945) marked turning points in its global status. Following World War II, the U.S. emerged as one of the two superpowers alongside the Soviet Union, solidified by its economic strength and its role in rebuilding war-torn Europe through the Marshall Plan.
Cold War Era: During the Cold War (1947–1991), the United States extended its influence as a leader of the Western bloc, pursuing strategies to contain communism and projecting power through alliances like NATO. Advances in science, technology, and military capabilities reinforced its position as a dominant force.
Economic and Cultural Influence: The post-war era saw the U.S. asserting “soft power” through cultural exports like Hollywood films, music, and consumer goods. Coupled with technological innovation and global trade, the American economy became a central pillar of the world.
Global Leadership: As the Cold War concluded, the U.S. became the world’s primary superpower, wielding unmatched influence over international institutions like the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.
This trajectory demonstrates how a combination of strategic actions, innovation, and historical opportunities propelled the United States to its status as a global leader. Its influence continues to evolve in response to new challenges in the modern era.
During the late 20th century, the world was predominantly unipolar, with American power overshadowing all other nations. The United States faced no significant rivals, while China leveraged international institutions established by the U.S., such as the World Trade Organization, to fuel its economic growth—often disregarding rules for equitable trade and investment. Despite these violations, the U.S. tolerated China’s actions, largely due to its dominant position on the global stage. Meanwhile, Russia had not yet emerged as a challenger. However, in 2007 at the Munich Security Forum, Vladimir Putin criticized the concept of a unipolar world, declaring that Russia and other nations could not accept such a system. Despite his remarks, they did little to alter the prevailing reality of American hegemony at the time.
The world America faces today is vastly different. Internationally, China and Russia have emerged as formidable competitors—China posing both economic and military challenges—while regionally, threats from Iran and North Korea persist. Although the United States remains the most powerful nation economically, technologically, and militarily, it now operates in a multipolar world where its power is constrained both internationally and domestically.
At home, the rise of populist and nationalist policies—embodied by President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance—has raised fundamental questions about America’s global role. In 2006, the national debate focused on U.S. involvement in Iraq, but there was still a broad consensus on America’s leadership role. However, prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan led many to question the cost of maintaining that role, eroding the belief that America must lead.
Today, with growing skepticism about the costs of foreign engagement, continued U.S. support for Ukraine against Russian aggression is no longer guaranteed. The once-assumed principle that larger states cannot dictate terms to smaller neighbors is also at risk. If America is to maintain a sustainable and effective role globally, it must align its actions with its historical traditions and improve its statecraft. Resonating with the American public requires honoring these traditions, while aligning objectives with available means is essential for success. The repeated failure to balance these has led to costly missteps and eroded public confidence—something the U.S. can no longer afford in an era of external challenges and internal doubt.
A Legacy of Unilateralism and Exceptionalism
American foreign policy traditions shape presidential choices and guide statecraft. While President Trump may not reflect all these traditions, he embodies one of them—unilateralism. Historically, America’s sense of exceptionalism justified two contrasting approaches: one that passively modeled values for the world and another that actively sought to export those values. For much of the 19th century, this exceptionalism fueled a unilateralist approach—avoiding entangling alliances while using military force to protect commercial interests. From fighting Barbary pirates to opening Japan and intervening in China during the Boxer Rebellion, these actions prioritized economic interests, not alliances or higher principles.
Trump’s vision echoes this tradition. His version of exceptionalism emphasizes pursuing America’s immediate interests, even if it diverges from presenting the U.S. as a model for the world. Though his rhetoric may not explicitly frame America as a beacon for others, his desire to “win” in foreign policy suggests a need for more effective statecraft.
The Consequences of Misaligned Objectives and Means
In theory, aligning objectives with available means should be a given. Yet, time and again, U.S. presidents—Republican and Democrat alike—have pursued objectives that exceeded available resources or lacked clear operational plans. Several factors contribute to this pattern:
- Misunderstanding Complexity: Decisions like President George W. Bush’s regime change in Iraq were made without fully grasping the consequences.
- Political Pressures: Leaders often pursue objectives influenced by domestic political concerns, even when they lack the necessary means. Lyndon B. Johnson’s deepening involvement in Vietnam stemmed from fears of political fallout if Democrats were seen as losing Vietnam, much like they had been blamed for the loss of China. Similarly, Barack Obama’s call for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down was driven by public pressure, despite lacking a clear strategy to enforce it.
- Vague Objectives: Lofty goals, such as ending wars in Ukraine and Gaza, may be politically appealing but require careful consideration of the resources and strategies needed for success.
The lesson is clear: higher stakes demand greater means. Moreover, framing objectives effectively is critical—not only to garner domestic support but also to secure international backing.
Iran and the Challenge of Preventing Nuclear Proliferation
Iran’s nuclear program presents a stark example of the need for strategic clarity. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it could trigger a regional arms race, with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey seeking their own nuclear arsenals—making an already volatile region even more dangerous. Iran is edging closer to that threshold, enriching uranium to near weapons-grade levels and stockpiling enough material for multiple bombs. Israel, fearing an existential threat, may feel compelled to act militarily before Iran crosses the line.
President Trump’s objective should not merely be preventing Iran from building a nuclear bomb but also denying Tehran the ability to retain the option of producing one in the future. Achieving this requires applying pressure that Iran finds meaningful—politically isolating the regime, exacerbating its economic vulnerabilities, and maintaining a credible military deterrent to threaten the destruction of its nuclear infrastructure if diplomacy fails.
Framing the Iranian threat effectively, rallying international support, and demonstrating a viable diplomatic solution are essential for success. Yet, Trump’s instinct for unilateralism risks leaving America without the partners needed to succeed without resorting to force—an outcome he would prefer to avoid.
Good statecraft involves selecting the right objectives and leveraging all available tools to enlist allies in achieving them. For Trump to “win” in foreign policy, his administration must adopt this approach. Marrying objectives with means, securing international partnerships, and carefully framing U.S. goals will determine whether America succeeds in safeguarding its interests in an increasingly complex world.
