How should one read the contours of US foreign policy in 2025?
At first glance, the year appears to have been defined by profound strategic inconsistency: erratic decisions, abrupt reversals, impulsive rhetoric, and a volatility that defies conventional prediction.
Yet, this apparent chaos masks something far more consequential. In the closing weeks of the year, the Trump administration unveiled what may be understood as a defining ideological blueprint: a rearticulation of the US National Security Strategy (NSS).
Far from restoring coherence, the document clarifies that the disorder is not accidental. It is doctrinal.
The NSS offers a rare window into America’s evolving posture on the global stage. It signals a return to a civilisational framing of international politics, reviving the language of a “clash of civilisations,” redefining the West and its values, and establishing a hierarchical global order.
Within this framework, Western civilisation is positioned at the apex, while other cultures, religions, and civilisations are implicitly relegated to subordinate status. Power, not law, becomes the organising principle.
The document also delivers a stark warning to Europe. To preserve Western primacy, it argues, Europe must insulate itself from what it describes as existential threats: pluralism, secularism, mass immigration, and the erosion of borders. These are framed not as social challenges to be managed, but as civilisational vulnerabilities capable of hollowing out the West from within.
Notably absent from this strategic vision is any substantive engagement with international law, multilateral institutions, or collective security. The NSS simultaneously downplays the strategic importance of the Middle East while elevating the Western Hemisphere as a core theatre of concern, framing regional dominance as an essential pillar of American security.
The implication is clear: global engagement is no longer guided by universal norms, but by selective hierarchies of interest.
Taken together, the document weaves the threads of American policy across the globe from Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria to Europe’s confrontation with Russia over Ukraine and onward to mounting tensions with Venezuela in Latin America.
It suggests a coherent, if unsettling, vision: the United States is consciously disentangling itself from the principles that once anchored the postwar international order, one that it helped design, sustain, and enforce.
The NSS openly dismisses the impulse to lecture other nations on democracy and human rights. Yet its silences speak louder than its declarations. Missing are the foundational concepts of sovereignty, the rule of law, self-determination, and the inviolability of borders.
This omission is not accidental. It reflects a deliberate recalibration away from an institutional, values-based system towards something far more fluid and far more dangerous.
At the core of this shift lies a single overriding imperative: the preservation of American dominance, political, military, and above all economic, in the face of a rising China.
With its relative economic power declining and its European allies weakened, the United States can no longer maintain primacy under the old rules. And so, the rules themselves are being rewritten.
The emerging framework evokes a Hobbesian world: a chaotic arena in which only the strong survive governed by a Darwinian logic applied not to organisms but to nations. In this new order, principles become privileges. Sovereignty, borders, self-determination, human rights, justice, and law are no longer universal entitlements. They are concessions, selectively granted to those powerful enough to demand them.
Beneath the surface volatility of American policy lies a chillingly coherent objective: absolute primacy by any means necessary. The impulsive ideas that punctuate Trump’s rhetoric – annexing Canada, purchasing Greenland, seizing control of the Panama Canal, transforming Gaza into an investment paradise, or converting Southern Lebanon into an industrial zone – are not mere improvisations.
They are symptomatic eruptions of a deeper doctrine: a zero-sum worldview in which every natural resource, every waterway, and every region is a strategic asset to be monopolised or denied to rivals, principally China.
This duality explains the difficulty many observers have in interpreting contemporary US behaviour. On the surface, policy appears erratic and unpredictable. At its core, however, it is rigidly committed to a form of hegemony that recognises no external constraints.
The spectre of economic eclipse by China has thus become a defining and deeply motivating anxiety within the American strategic psyche. The fear of losing the defining race of the 21st century has catalysed a fundamental shift in statecraft from engagement within a rules-based system to aggressive, often unilateral realignment.
This behaviour mirrors that of a hegemonic power determined to preserve its position by any means available. America increasingly leverages its residual military, financial, and diplomatic might to coerce, divide, and contain, rather than to collaborate or compete on equal economic terms.
The sweeping tariffs imposed under Trump, and largely retained as strategic instruments, were not routine trade adjustments. They were tools of geopolitical coercion, designed to force realignments, weaken multilateral institutions, and signal that the United States would unilaterally rewrite the terms of global exchange to suit its perceived needs, regardless of international law or allied sovereignty.
GLOBAL ASSETS: Viewed through this lens, America’s international manoeuvres cohere into a broader campaign: the control of global resources and strategic choke points that underpin long-term economic and geopolitical dominance.
Each conflict and diplomatic confrontation is layered with an unspoken calculus involving gas, oil, rare earths, agricultural land, and critical infrastructure.
This is not solely about immediate profit. It is about securing physical collateral and strategic leverage to support an enormous and growing national debt, while feeding the innovation engines of the private sector.
Under banners such as “development,” “reconstruction,” and “security partnerships,” American capital and corporate structures are increasingly positioned to acquire controlling stakes in foreign resources and infrastructure.
This systematic capture serves a dual purpose. It starves rival powers, chiefly China, of essential inputs for growth, while simultaneously creating overseas assets that can, directly or indirectly, shore up a debt-saturated US financial system. In this context, sanctions, military alliances, and even peace initiatives become moves in a zero-sum game of economic survival, where sovereignty and law are treated as inconveniences to be circumvented by the stronger party.
The United States thus finds itself forging new ad hoc principles in real time that are designed not to foster global cooperation, but to selectively impede its adversaries. The conscious dismantling of the existing global order is deemed an acceptable risk, even in the absence of any coherent or universally agreed alternative. The world is left navigating the rubble of a dismantled system, guided by the improvisational will of a hegemon acting from defensive panic.
To understand Washington’s fixation on Venezuela, for example, one must look beyond the political theatre of ideology and into the stark ledger of material power. At its core, this is not a struggle over democracy; it is a contest over collateral and the very survival of a Western financial architecture that has grown structurally dependent on the globalised control of sovereign assets.
The stakes are not concealed; they are merely draped in the ornate language of political discourse, obscuring a raw and calculable reality.
Consider the geography of power: Venezuela sits atop what may be the largest proven oil reserves on Earth – a subterranean ocean of potential energy that, in purely financial terms, represents trillions of dollars in deployable collateral.
For Wall Street, this is not about securing a mere commodity. The true imperative is control over the state that governs these resources. When a government is aligned, its natural wealth can be transformed and privatised, often with American companies taking the lion’s share, and leveraged to support a fragile, debt-saturated US credit system.
Thus, in an era of ballooning US public and private debt, Venezuela’s resources offer a rare and desperately needed form of ballast and a means of stabilising a system starved of secure, sovereign-backed assets.
The language of liberation thus belies a far more tangible ambition: the absorption of a nation’s wealth into the scaffolding of US finance.
THE MIDDLE EAST: In the Middle East, this logic manifests itself with stark clarity. Under this paradigm, Israel, America’s closest regional ally, acquires a perceived licence to reshape illegally occupied territories, from Gaza to Southern Lebanon and Syria.
These spaces are rebranded as “a Riviera on the Mediterranean,” “Trump industrial zones,” or “demilitarised areas,” and all are underpinned by the unspoken axiom that might create its own right.
This represents a deliberate departure from the rules-based international order. Political sovereignty is replaced by securitised economic zones. Conflict is no longer resolved; it is managed. Natural resources are exploited, coastlines developed for tourism, and real estate opened to international capital. Once a presence is established, agreements for ports and military bases inevitably follow.
The objective is not merely extraction, but the construction of a new regional architecture in which stability is purchased through economic inducements and overwhelming military dominance. This vision is fundamentally managerial. It seeks to render conflicts inert by bypassing their root causes – occupation, displacement, and sovereignty – and substituting political solutions with security arrangements and promised capital.
The demilitarised zones are not intended for mutual security; they function as unilateral buffers designed to expand Israel’s strategic depth, legitimising its territorial conquests and security anxieties as the immutable foundation of any regional arrangement.
The consistent pattern from Gaza to southern Syria is the sidelining of UN resolutions, the dismissal of international law, and the elevation of Israeli strategic primacy as the immutable foundation of any settlement.
American policy has thus become the architect of a Pax Israeliana, in which Israel is not merely secure, but dominant. Its neighbours will be pacified through diplomacy, as in the Abraham Accords, or rendered harmless through economic dependency and military containment.
The Russia-Ukraine war further illustrates this emerging doctrine. Trump-linked peace proposals have floated the creation of “special economic zones” in parts of eastern Ukraine, particularly in Donbas and Donetsk, territory controlled by Ukraine but claimed by Russia.
Under these proposals, Ukrainian forces would withdraw, the areas would be economically rebranded, and Russia would suspend further advances. Governance, legal status, and security guarantees remain conspicuously vague.
These ideas follow the April 2025 US-Ukraine framework agreement establishing a joint Reconstruction Investment Fund. The fund is designed to attract capital for reconstruction while developing Ukraine’s critical mineral and energy resources, including rare earths, oil, and natural gas.
US companies receive priority access to new projects, while Ukraine formally retains ownership of its subsoil resources and co-manages the fund on a roughly equal basis.
The agreement reflects broader US objectives: securing supplies of critical minerals essential for advanced technologies, reducing dependence on China, and formalising a strategic economic partnership amid ongoing war.
Peace, in this framework, becomes inseparable from asset access.
EUROPE: This asset-grabbing strategy, veiled beneath labels such as “diplomatic mediation,” “peace agreement,” and “development projects,” presents an unprecedented dilemma for both adversaries and allies.
Nowhere is this schism more profound than in the transatlantic relationship, the bedrock of the postwar West. The year 2025 exposed a fundamental rupture, revealing divergent worldviews on issues ranging from Ukraine and immigration to welfare-state governance, the blunt instrument of tariffs, and the future of the EU.
This is not a policy disagreement; it is ideological excommunication. The contours of this new front were sharply articulated in an article published in April by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, titled “The Need for Civilisational Allies in Europe.”
In it, the Trump administration framed Europe’s embrace of multiculturalism and secular governance as the central threat in a betrayal in which the institutions of liberal democracy were weaponised “against Western civilisation itself.”
This rhetoric, echoed in the NSS document, left little ambiguity: “old Europe” was now diagnosed as the “Achilles heel” of the Western project it once helped define.
The NSS frames Europe’s “weakness” not in military terms, but through the prism of immigration and demographic change. References to cities such as London and Paris becoming “different” echo the “great replacement” conspiracy theory, suggesting that multiculturalism itself constitutes civilisational suicide.
This transforms political critique into an existential and racially charged narrative, in which the prescribed response is the support of nativist and far-right movements across Europe rendering shared democratic values secondary to a narrow vision of ethnic and cultural preservation.
The document’s pledge to “cultivate resistance” within the European Union to “correct its current trajectory” has been described by European Council President António Costa as an unprecedented threat from an ally. It marks a shift from persuasion to subversion, aligning US state power with internal political forces seeking to hollow out the EU from within.
Trump, in his second term, has thus moved beyond transactional grievances over NATO burden-sharing towards a comprehensive doctrine fundamentally hostile to the European Union’s political project, dismissive of its social evolution, and aligned with forces seeking its fragmentation. This is not a diplomatic rift awaiting repair; it is a fundamental redefinition of America’s role and interests.
Calls from figures such as French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for a security policy more independent of Washington are therefore not merely rhetorical but are inevitable. The Atlantic alliance is not experiencing a temporary downturn; it is undergoing a stress test that may prove terminal in its current configuration.
However, the true rift between America and Europe does not lie, as the American right claims, in the belief that open borders, immigration, and multiculturalism have weakened the continent. Rather, it resides in a deeper divergence of vision.
Europe, or at least many of its nations, remains America’s indispensable ideological ally on the global stage, yet it clings to a worldview America has consciously abandoned: one governed by international law, shared institutions, and the inviolable principles of sovereignty and borders.
In contrast, contemporary American foreign policy has shed its familiar structure, abandoning the predictable grammar of statecraft. It has evolved into a discourse of startling fluidity and impulsive force, where long-established diplomatic frameworks dissolve into abstraction to be replaced by a surreal lexicon of transactional whimsy.
International relations itself is being rewritten not through diplomatic treaties, but as speculative real-estate pitches and exercises in geopolitical branding.
This dynamic imposes a profound dilemma on both America’s allies and its rivals. In its relentless drive to preserve hegemony and command global resources and strategic assets, US foreign policy is entering a prolonged phase of volatility and erraticism and one with no clear terminus.
The result is an international system that increasingly resembles an open arena of permanent contest unfolding across multiple fronts.
The erosion of the rules-based order is therefore no longer theoretical. As the United States abandons the architecture it itself designed, it leaves behind not a coherent alternative, but a vacuum filled by force, opportunism, and improvisation.
Whether Europe and the rest of the world can resist being drawn into this new grammar of power, or whether they will be compelled to adapt to a world where law yields to leverage, may ultimately determine whether the international system fragments into managed chaos or finds the resolve to reconstruct itself on firmer ground.
Short link: