Dr. Arvind Suresh | Desh-Videsh Media reaches 1.5 Millions+ Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi, and Indo-Caribbeans.

India is Winning Trump 2.0 The World is Watching and Learning

Deshvidesh — Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:04:37 +0000

By Dr. Arvind Suresh

When Donald Trump returned to power, much of the world reacted with unease. Allies worried about unpredictability. Multilateral institutions braced for disruption. Economies prepared for volatility driven by tariffs, bilateral deal-making, and a retreat from long-standing global frameworks.
But India did not panic. It did not retreat. Instead, it recalibrated—quickly, quietly, and strategically.

What followed was not merely adaptation. It was an acceleration.

India moved ahead—and began winning.

At the center of this transformation stands Narendra Modi, whose leadership has elevated India from a balancing power to a platform-shaping force across global institutions such as BRICS and the G20.

A compelling discussion on the Grand Tamasha podcast by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace offers a crucial insight: India’s success in this turbulent environment is not accidental. It is strategic, deliberate, and increasingly, it is becoming a model the world is beginning to notice.

From Rules-Based Order to Power-Based Reality

For decades, the so-called “rules-based international order” was presented as neutral and fair. In reality, it reflected Western priorities, applied selectively, and often constrained emerging powers like India.

Trump did not create this reality—he exposed it.

By sidelining institutions such as the World Trade Organization and NATO in favor of bilateral negotiations, Trump accelerated a shift already underway. The global system moved away from predictable frameworks toward a more fluid, transactional order defined by three principles:

Power matters more than process.
Deals matter more than doctrine.
National interest outweighs global consensus.

Many nations found themselves uncomfortable in this environment, struggling to adjust to a system where relationships were conditional and influence had to be negotiated continuously.

India, however, was uniquely prepared.

Why India Is Thriving in a Transactional World

Unlike many countries that became deeply dependent on rigid alliances, India historically maintained strategic flexibility. Even during the height of globalization, it avoided overcommitment to any single power bloc.

This instinct—once seen as cautious or even indecisive—now appears remarkably prescient.

Under Modi’s leadership, this philosophy has evolved into a clear and confident doctrine: engage widely, but depend on no one.

India did not fundamentally reinvent its foreign policy under Trump 2.0. Instead, it refined and scaled an approach already in motion—multi-alignment backed by strategic autonomy.

In practical terms, this means India can simultaneously:

Collaborate with the United States on defense and technology
Engage with Russia on energy and security
Compete and cooperate with China where necessary
Lead coalitions across the Global South

This is not a contradiction. It is a calculated design.

In a world where alliances are fluid and interests shift rapidly, India’s ability to operate across multiple geopolitical spaces has become a decisive advantage.

The Modi Doctrine: Leadership Without Dependence

Under Narendra Modi, India has moved beyond passive participation in global affairs. It has become an active shaper of outcomes.

This transformation rests on three pillars.

1. Assertive Global Presence

India no longer hesitates to articulate its position on critical issues—from trade and technology to climate and conflict. Its voice is clear, confident, and increasingly influential.

2. Platform Leadership

India is not merely present in global forums—it shapes their agenda. Whether through G20 leadership or its active role in BRICS, India has demonstrated its ability to influence outcomes across diverse coalitions.

3. Strategic Confidence

India engages major powers on its own terms. This confidence is rooted not in rhetoric, but in economic growth, demographic strength, and geopolitical relevance.

In a world increasingly driven by strong leaders and direct engagement, Modi’s leadership style has proven not just effective—but aligned with the times.

Jaishankar: Precision Behind the Vision

While Modi provides strategic direction, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar ensures execution with precision.

His diplomacy has been instrumental in:

Translating vision into actionable strategy
Managing complex negotiations across global platforms
Articulating India’s position with clarity and confidence
Building coalitions that support India’s initiatives

Jaishankar’s approach is pragmatic, flexible, and sharply focused on national interest—perfectly aligned with the demands of a transactional world.

Together, Modi and Jaishankar represent a leadership model that combines vision with execution.

BRICS: From Bloc to Strategic Platform

India’s performance within BRICS illustrates how it has turned potential constraints into strategic advantages.

Traditionally viewed as a grouping dominated by China and Russia, BRICS could have limited India’s influence. Instead, India reshaped its role within the bloc.

It asserted its independent voice.
It championed Global South priorities.
It pushed for reform in global financial systems.
It ensured no single country monopolized the narrative.

Rather than treating BRICS as a challenge, India transformed it into a platform—one that amplifies its voice across emerging economies.

Even discussions around BRICS expansion, initially seen as a potential dilution of influence, were approached with calculated pragmatism. India supported a broader, more inclusive framework while safeguarding its strategic interests.

This is diplomacy not as reaction—but as design.

G20 Leadership: Bridging a Divided World

India’s leadership in the G20 further reinforces its growing global stature.

At a time when geopolitical tensions threatened to paralyze global cooperation, India delivered results. It achieved consensus where others saw deadlock.

Under Modi’s leadership, the G20:

Produced a unified declaration despite deep divisions
Elevated the voice of the Global South
Facilitated the inclusion of the African Union
Promoted digital public infrastructure as a global model
Advocated for climate equity and sustainable development

This was more than a diplomatic success. It demonstrated capability.

India showed that it could bridge divides—not by imposing dominance, but by building consensus across competing interests.

That is leadership of a different kind.

Managing the U.S. Relationship—Without Dependence

Trump’s approach to global relations is fundamentally transactional. Partnerships are evaluated based on outcomes, reciprocity, and immediate benefit.

Many traditional allies struggled to adapt to this shift.

India did not.

Instead, it approached the relationship with the United States pragmatically:

Strengthening defense and technology cooperation
Engaging in tough but constructive trade negotiations
Avoiding overdependence on U.S. policy direction

India works with the United States—but it does not rely solely on it.

This distinction is critical. It allows India to benefit from partnership without being constrained by it.

Europe Turns to India—And Washington Takes Notice

As global trade tensions intensified under Trump-era tariff disruptions, Europe made a decisive strategic pivot toward India. Leading this shift was Ursula von der Leyen—the head of the European Union’s executive body responsible for shaping trade policy across all member states. During her high-profile visit to New Delhi in January 2026, she elevated the India–EU relationship to a historic level by describing the proposed Free Trade Agreement as the “mother of all deals.” In her words, this was a “tale of two giants”—India and the European Union—choosing a win-win partnership at a time when global trade systems were under strain.

Von der Leyen’s visit was not an isolated event—it was part of a broader wave of European outreach to India. Leaders such as Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz had also engaged directly with Narendra Modi through state visits and strategic dialogues, reinforcing Europe’s intent to deepen economic and geopolitical ties with India. The India–EU Free Trade Agreement—finalized in principle after nearly two decades of on-and-off negotiations—aims to create one of the largest economic partnerships in the world, connecting nearly two billion people and accounting for approximately 25% of global GDP. Designed to reduce tariffs, remove trade barriers, and strengthen cooperation across sectors such as manufacturing, digital trade, and supply chains, the agreement represents far more than commerce—it is a strategic realignment. That this breakthrough was achieved during von der Leyen’s visit—where she also participated as a chief guest at India’s Republic Day celebrations—sent a clear message: in a fractured global economy, Europe is not retreating inward. It is turning toward India as a central pillar of its future growth and stability.

What makes this moment particularly significant is what followed. Almost immediately after the momentum around the India–EU deal became evident, the United States under Donald Trump signaled a softening stance toward India on tariffs and trade friction. Whether coincidental or strategic recalibration, the sequence was unmistakable: as Europe moved aggressively to secure deeper economic ties with India, Washington adjusted its posture. This was not just about trade—it was about influence. The message was clear: India is no longer a secondary player reacting to global power shifts. It is now a central actor shaping them. When two major global powers begin recalibrating their economic strategies in response to India’s positioning, it reflects a deeper transformation—India is not waiting to be chosen; it is being competed for.

Modi–Putin Optics goes viral

If there was any doubt that India’s multi-alignment strategy was sending shockwaves across global capitals, it was erased during the high-profile BRICS summit held in China in 2025, where Narendra Modi met with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. While the formal meetings focused on BRICS expansion, Global South coordination, and reshaping financial systems outside Western dominance, it was an unscripted moment that captured the world’s attention—and triggered quiet concern in Washington. Modi and Putin were seen riding together in a single car, without visible aides or diplomatic entourages from either side. In the rigid world of high-security diplomacy, this was not just unusual—it was a statement.

The visuals went viral within hours. Analysts across global media interpreted the moment as a powerful signal of personal trust and strategic comfort between India and Russia—despite intense Western pressure to isolate Moscow. But the implications went far beyond optics. This was happening within the broader framework of BRICS and overlapping alignments with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization—platforms increasingly seen as counterweights to Western-led institutions. For policymakers in Washington, including those around Donald Trump, the message was unmistakable: India was not drifting into any camp—it was confidently operating across all of them. At a time when the U.S. was attempting to recalibrate global influence through tariffs and pressure tactics, India was demonstrating that it could engage simultaneously with the West, Russia, and China—on its own terms. The takeaway was clear, and it likely did not go unnoticed: isolating India was not an option. Competing for India had become a necessity.

China: Competition Without Escalation

India’s relationship with China remains complex, but its approach reflects maturity and discipline.

Rather than reacting emotionally, India has adopted a balanced strategy:

Strengthening its security posture
Reducing economic and strategic vulnerabilities
Building partnerships to counterbalance influence

At the same time, it has avoided unnecessary escalation.

This ability to compete without overreacting provides India with flexibility—an essential asset in an unpredictable global environment.

Economic Strategy: Turning Disruption into Opportunity

Trump-era trade policies disrupted global supply chains, forcing companies to reconsider their dependence on China.

India recognized the opportunity.

Under Modi, India has positioned itself as a viable alternative manufacturing hub. Initiatives such as “Make in India,” combined with expanding trade agreements and infrastructure investment, have attracted global capital seeking diversification.

What could have been a global challenge became a national opportunity.

India’s economic strategy reflects a broader pattern: it does not merely respond to change—it leverages it.

Outperforming the World Despite Global Disruptions

India’s economic performance under these turbulent global conditions further reinforces why it is not just surviving—but winning. According to the International Monetary Fund, India is projected to grow at approximately 6.5% in 2026, making it the fastest-growing major economy in the world . This is not a marginal lead—it is a structural advantage. In comparison, the United States is expected to grow at around 2.3%, while the Eurozone struggles near 1.1% growth, weighed down by energy shocks and geopolitical instability . Even more striking, India alone is expected to contribute roughly 17% of global GDP growth, nearly double the U.S. contribution of about 9.9% . In a slowing global economy—where overall growth has been downgraded to around 3.1% due to geopolitical tensions and war disruptions—India stands out as a primary engine of expansion .

What makes this performance remarkable is the context. This growth is happening despite Trump-era tariff disruptions, global supply chain shifts, and the economic shockwaves triggered by the ongoing Iran conflict, which has increased inflation and disrupted energy markets worldwide . While advanced economies are grappling with rising costs, slowing manufacturing, and policy uncertainty, India has maintained relative macroeconomic stability—with inflation projected at a manageable 4–5% range and strong domestic demand supporting growth . Its nominal GDP has already crossed $4.5 trillion, placing it among the world’s top economies . In simple terms, while much of the world is adjusting to disruption, India is converting that disruption into momentum—strengthening its position as one of the few economies driving global growth in an otherwise uncertain era.

Energy Strategy: Turning Crisis into Control

India’s handling of the global oil and energy crisis is perhaps one of the clearest examples of strategic execution under pressure. Despite the Iran war disrupting nearly 20% of global oil and gas flows through the Strait of Hormuz and exposing India’s vulnerability—where 50–55% of its oil and LNG imports typically pass through that route —the country avoided a full-scale energy shock. Instead of depending on a single region, India rapidly diversified its supply chain. Russian crude alone now accounts for roughly 40% of India’s total oil imports, up dramatically from negligible levels just a few years ago . In fact, amid peak disruptions, India increased Russian imports by as much as 90% month-on-month, ensuring continuity of supply even as Middle Eastern shipments faltered . Simultaneously, India expanded sourcing across more than 40 global suppliers, including the U.S., Russia, and Australia, effectively insulating itself from regional shocks .

Even more impressive is how India managed domestic stability despite external chaos. While global markets faced shortages and price spikes, India secured up to 60 days of crude supply and maintained stable fuel availability across the country . It increased domestic LPG production by nearly 40%, offsetting sharp import declines caused by war disruptions . At a time when LPG imports were projected to fall by almost 50% due to the conflict , India proactively sourced alternative shipments and prioritized domestic consumption. The result: while much of the world struggled with energy insecurity, India maintained continuity, controlled inflationary pressure, and ensured that economic momentum was not derailed. This was not luck—it was a calculated strategy built on diversification, flexibility, and decisive policy action.

A Model the World Is Beginning to Follow

The most significant shift is not just what India is doing—but how the world is responding.

Increasingly, global analysts and policymakers are recognizing that India offers an alternative path in a fragmented world.

India has demonstrated that it is possible to:

Maintain strategic autonomy without isolation
Expand influence without overdependence
Lead without dominating
Remain flexible without appearing weak

In a world where many nations feel forced into binary choices, India has shown that a third path exists.

This is why India is not just succeeding—it is becoming a model.

The Road Ahead: A Defining Decade

India now stands at a pivotal moment. The coming decade will determine whether it consolidates its position as a leading global power or falls short of its potential.

Three factors will shape this outcome.

Economic Execution
Growth must translate into manufacturing strength, job creation, and global competitiveness.

Strategic Discipline
Multi-alignment must remain focused and intentional—not drift into inconsistency.

Domestic Reform
Internal reforms are essential to fully leverage external opportunities.

India—Built for the Present Moment

Trump’s world is unpredictable, competitive, and transactional. For many nations, this represents a crisis.

For India, it is an opportunity.

India’s strategy—anchored in multi-alignment, economic pragmatism, and geopolitical maturity—positions it uniquely in this evolving order.

Power today is not defined by geography alone. It is defined by networks, adaptability, and strategic clarity.

India has all three.

This is not just India’s moment.

It is India’s moment—amplified, accelerated, and increasingly acknowledged by the world.

About the Author

Dr. Arvind Suresh is an Indian-American scholar of international affairs, currently based in Washington, D.C. He earned his Ph.D. in political science with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and global strategic relations. Dr. Suresh specializes in analyzing America’s diplomatic, economic, and security engagements with major world powers.

He has served as an advisor to various government agencies and international organizations on matters of global diplomacy. His research explores shifting alliances, geopolitical risks, and the role of the U.S. in a multipolar world. Widely respected in academic and policy circles, he frequently participates in international forums and expert panels. Dr. Suresh is committed to fostering cross-cultural dialogue and developing policy solutions for global cooperation.

The post India is Winning Trump 2.0 The World is Watching and Learning first appeared on Desh-Videsh Media reaches 1.5 Millions+ Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi, and Indo-Caribbeans..

Failed American Foreign Policy

Deshvidesh — Mon, 30 Jun 2025 11:07:47 +0000

By Dr. Arvind Suresh

A Trail of Miscalculations, Betrayals, Moral Blindness and Double Standards

The United States of America has positioned itself as a global superpower over the past few decades, frequently promoting the ideals of justice, freedom, and democracy. However, a more thorough examination of its foreign policy reveals a history of poor decisions, ill-advised alliances, and tactical ploys that have not only destabilized areas but also, frequently, given adversaries more power. From the Cold War to the present, the United States has frequently supported dictators, sided with the wrong side in wars, incited future adversaries, and meddled in domestic affairs with disastrous results. American foreign policy has frequently taken the wrong side of history, from arming future adversaries like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden to supporting authoritarian governments and even deploying warships against democracies. In addition to costing the US trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, these mistakes have damaged the country’s reputation around the world.

America’s Own Products: Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein

The formation of enemies that the United States eventually engages in combat with is one of the most obvious trends in its foreign policy. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, two of the most notorious figures in contemporary history, were not only America’s enemies but also its allies at one point, carefully cultivated by American policy to further American objectives.

Donald Rumsfeld with Saddam Hussein

Following the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the United States backed Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq as a counterweight to Iran during the Cold War. Washington ignored his repressive practices and even contributed resources and intelligence during the 1980s Iran-Iraq War. After Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, the West that had previously supported his ascent was compelled to engage in an expensive and protracted conflict, first in Operation Desert Storm and then in the 2003 Iraq War, which caused instability throughout the Middle East.

Osama bin Laden’s story takes a similar course. The United States provided the mujahideen, or radical Islamic fighters opposing Soviet occupation, with billions of dollars in arms and training during the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s. “One of the beneficiaries of this anti-Soviet jihad was Bin Laden, a Saudi national. The same man would go on to mastermind the 9/11 attacks on American soil years later, starting a war on terror that has cost trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, and innumerable civilian casualties in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places.”

The irony is harsh: the United States contributed to the creation of monsters it later had to battle, demonstrating a pattern of shortsighted strategies with long-term repercussions.

Supporting the Wrong Side of History in the 1971 Bangladesh War

President Reagan meeting with Afghan Mujahideen in the White House to
discuss Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

The United States’ decision to support Pakistan during the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, in spite of overwhelming evidence of genocide by the Pakistani military in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), was arguably one of its most disgraceful actions.

One of the biggest genocides of the 20th century, it claimed the lives of over three million people and raped hundreds of thousands of women.

As East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) struggled against West Pakistan’s violent repression, India backed the Bengali independence movement. Due in large part to the fact that India was viewed as being too close to the Soviet Union and Pakistan had acted as a backchannel to China, President Richard Nixon and his advisor Henry Kissinger supported General Yahya Khan’s authoritarian government rather than democratic goals and humanitarian concerns.

One of the most contentious actions was the United States’ deployment of the Seventh Fleet into the Baforce display intended to scare India, which was harboring more than 10 million refugees escaping the horrors in Pakistan. This was a moral failure as well as a sign of geopolitical imbalance. The United States’ refusal to take action against Pakistan in the face of copious reports of mass rape and genocide by the Pakistani military alienated the people of Bangladesh and tarnished its reputation as a human rights advocate.

In the end, India won, and Bangladesh became a sovereign state. However, the United States’ involvement in one of the worst humanitarian crises of the 20th century left it with a damaged reputation and a foreign policy marred by complicity.

Double Standards: 9/11 vs. 26/11 Mumbai Attacks

Photo : X.com.
USA sent 7th Fleet’s Task Force, led by the nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, to the Bay of Bengal.

Following the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks in 2008, there was arguably one of the most devastating betrayals of Indian public sentiment. In a startling, multi-day siege of India’s financial capital, terrorists from the Lashkar-e-Taiba group, who were trained and led by handlers in Pakistan, killed 175 innocent people and injured hundreds more.

However, the U.S. repeatedly urged India to “exercise restraint” rather than supporting India in taking decisive action against Pakistan. Using the justification that a military reaction would worsen regional instability, American officials used covert diplomacy to defuse the situation.

In contrast, the United States responded to 9/11 by launching a full-scale war in Afghanistan in an effort to destroy al-Qaeda and find Osama bin Laden. The United States reaffirmed its right to unilateral retaliation and called for international solidarity. Despite the overwhelming evidence of Pakistani involvement, that right was not extended to India. The moral and strategic inconsistency of U.S. foreign policy was brought to light by this double standard, which holds that American lives incite wars while Indian lives necessitate patience.

Trump, Tactical Flattery, and Asim Munir

The same pattern recurs in the present. Known for his erratic foreign policy, President Donald Trump once took a strong stance against Pakistan, denouncing its support of terrorists and even halting aid. But in a total 180-degree turnabout, Trump and his administration started praising General Asim Munir, the current Army Chief of Pakistan, who is generally regarded as the mastermind behind the detention of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and the strengthening of military rule over civilian matters in Pakistan.

It seems that short-term strategic interests—possibly to gain limited counterterrorism cooperation or regional leverage over Afghanistan—are driving this tactical engagement with Munir. However, history cautions us about the dangers of this route. The United States once again runs the risk of strengthening an organization that has continuously weakened democracy, encouraged extremism, and destabilized South Asia by recognizing and interacting with Pakistan’s military deep state.

The Ultimate Quagmire: The Vietnam War

President Nixon, Prime Minister Gandhi and Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev

The Vietnam War is an essential component of any list of failed U.S. foreign policy initiatives. What started out as an effort to restrain communism became a catastrophe that lasted for two decades. The United States was unable to stop the fall of Saigon in 1975, even with massive troop deployments, billions of dollars spent, and more than 58,000 American lives lost. Vietnam came to represent American hubris, poor intelligence, and overreach. In addition, the war caused a great deal of disenchantment with government institutions and a deep rift in American society.

Iran 1953: A Coup That Backfired

The Shah was reinstated in 1953 after the United States and Britain planned a coup to remove Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran’s democratically elected prime minister. Long-term animosity among Iranians was sown by this short-term victory for oil interests. The outcome was the hostage crisis, the Islamic Revolution of 1979, and decades of hostility that continue to influence U.S.-Iranian relations today. The current Iranian theocracy frequently uses American meddling as an excuse for its anti-Western views.

Afghanistan 2001–2021: From Nation-Building to Abandonment

The initial goal of the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan was to destroy al-Qaeda. However, over the course of two decades, the mission changed to nation-building, supporting corrupt regimes, and investing more than $2 trillion in an undefined war. The Taliban regained power after the Afghan government collapsed spectacularly as a result of the sudden withdrawal in 2021. The war ended in humiliation rather than victory, and thousands of Afghans who backed the United States were left behind.

Libya 2011: From Humanitarian Intervention to Chaos

Photo:X.com

The United States spearheaded a NATO bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi’s government in Libya under President Obama. Although Gaddafi was overthrown, the operation left the nation in ruins. Warring militias, open slave markets, and continuous foreign meddling characterize Libya as a failed state today. Libya has become a case study of how regime change without a post-war plan breeds instability as a result of this “intervention without strategy.”

Syria: Inaction and Confusion

American foreign policy in Syria suffered from paralysis and inconsistency rather than overreach. President Obama’s notorious “red line” warning about chemical weapons was not followed, which allowed Bashar al-Assad to gain confidence and damaged American credibility. America later supported rebels against Assad, many of whom had ties to extremist organizations. The outcome? ISIS’s ascent, a protracted civil war, a severe refugee crisis, and Assad’s consolidation with Iranian and Russian backing.

Latin America: Endless Interference, No Advancement

“The United States’ engagement in Latin America has frequently stoked violence, corruption, and anti-American sentiment, from aiding the Contras in Nicaragua to supporting military takeovers in Chile (1973), Guatemala (1954), and Bolivia (2019).” Decades of instability have resulted from these interventions, which are nearly always defended as pro-stability or anti-communist actions. They have also weakened democratic movements throughout the region.

Backing Dictators and Suppressing Democracies

Photo:X.com

In the name of combating terrorism or communism, the United States has supported authoritarian governments and military juntas throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries. U.S. foreign policy has frequently supported tyrants at the expense of their people’s desire for democracy, from Pinochet in Chile to Mobutu in Congo, from the Shah of Iran to Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. These partnerships may have provided short-term economic benefit or stability, but they also planted the seeds of radicalization and long-term animosity.

Despite Saudi Arabia’s appalling human rights record and its role in exporting Wahhabism, the United States’ support for the monarchy in the Middle East runs counter to its claims of promoting liberal values. In a similar vein, Washington’s unquestioning backing of Israel despite growing settlements and hostilities with Palestinians feeds anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world.

U.S. Entry into the Russia–Ukraine War

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, tens of thousands of people have lost their lives and millions have faced displacement. With more than $118 billion in military assistance and about $67 billion in direct security support alone, the United States has been Ukraine’s main supporter.

But both domestically and internationally, this enormous U.S. commitment has spurred political and strategic discussions. Some contend that Washington is essentially using Ukraine as a stand-in, extending the conflict to undermine Russia, possibly at significant financial and humanitarian expense. Others warn that the US has exerted pressure on Kyiv to make harsh concessions, such as acknowledging Russian sovereignty over Crimea.

Russia has intensified its own military action in Ukraine as the Middle East crisis worsens, indicating that Moscow may be able to gain leverage if the world focuses on other hotspots. The outcome remains uncertain, and the United States must now balance its support for Ukraine with emerging international crises.

U.S. Involvement in the Israel–Hamas War and Escalation with Iran

Photo:X.com

In the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, American military posture and diplomacy have been crucial. Widespread international condemnation of the civilian deaths in Gaza has put the U.S.’s influence to the test, despite the fact that it has given Israel diplomatic cover and security assistance.

Above all, the United States recently joined Israel in bombing Iran’s nuclear sites, marking the first direct American airstrikes on Iranian territory since possible nuclearization. Under “Operation Midnight Hammer,” U.S. B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk missiles attacked Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan on June 21–22, 2025.

Declaring the sites “totally obliterated,” President Trump praised the mission as a “spectacular military success.” However, experts warn that Iran might still have a significant amount of enriched uranium and nuclear infrastructure, which could be rebuilt in a matter of months. Fears of a wider regional conflict have increased as a result of Iran’s retaliation, which involved firing missiles at US bases in Qatar.

What’s at Stake—and Why the Jury’s Still OutThese events represent a dramatic escalation of U.S. involvement in multiple global conflicts:

Conflict	U.S. Role	Risk/Outcome
Russia–Ukraine	Major arms & financial support	Risk of protracted engagement, donor fatigue, strategic overreach
Israel–Hamas	Diplomatic backing, military aid	Growing global backlash, questioning of U.S. impartiality
Israel–Iran	Direct military action	Risk of wide war, unclear nuclear impact, legal controversy

The United States is currently involved in three high-stakes conflicts at the same time. The verdict is still pending. Will it become a powerful global leader that upholds deterrence and international norms? Instead, will these actions increase instability, deplete resources, and damage American credibility?

The answer to that will come with time and whether these regional crises settle or spiral. One thing is certain, though: the interventionism, moral ambiguity, and strategic risk that have defined American foreign policy for decades are all present in these most recent actions.

Short-Term Thinking, Long-Term Chaos

A pattern of short-term strategic thinking unites these mistakes. Regardless of the long-term effects, U.S. foreign policy frequently acts with tunnel vision, identifying a short-term adversary and standing by anyone who opposes it. The outcome has always been the same: empowered radicals, failed states, and backlash against the United States and its allies, regardless of whether it was arming the Taliban against the Soviets, flirting with Pakistan’s military rulers, or assisting authoritarian regimes under the pretense of stability.

The Cost of Failure
These failed policies come at a huge cost:

Human cost: Millions have died in wars that the U.S. either started, escalated, or sustained—Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya.
Financial cost: With little return on investment or goodwill, trillions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on wars and military assistance.
Moral cost: The United States’ reputation has suffered. From drone strikes to regime change, from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo, the United States is increasingly viewed as a meddler rather than a liberator.
Strategic cost: American promises are now viewed with suspicion by many nations. While adversaries take advantage of contradictions, allies are uncertain about long-term commitments.

Rethinking American Power

A perilous pattern—short-term thinking, opportunistic alliances, moral blindness, and a disregard for long-term consequences—unites all of these cases. Too frequently, corporate interests, ideological anxieties, and tactical calculations have influenced American foreign policy more than moral leadership.

America needs to start doing the right thing, even if it is not convenient at the moment, instead of making monsters to fight monsters or going for the “lesser evil.” Only then will the country be able to recover its moral leadership and steer clear of the mistakes that have characterized so much of its post-war history.

The inequity and imbalance at the heart of American strategy are exemplified by its refusal to support India after 26/11 while pleading for international sympathy after 9/11. America asks others to exercise restraint, even when their suffering is similar to its own, even though it retains the right to take decisive action in its own best interests.

In addition to undermining America’s reputation abroad, these mistakes have fostered anti-American sentiment, left radicals in positions of power, and violated the very principles that the United States professes to support. A fundamental rethinking of U.S. foreign policy is needed, one that is based on multilateral cooperation, long-term vision, and a dedication to justice rather than merely strategic advantage.

There is still hope for the United States to be a positive influence on the world. Indeed, nations can be inspired by its guiding principles of democracy, justice, and liberty. However, this is only possible if foreign policy supports these values rather than running counter to them. It is imperative to adopt a new strategy based on long-term vision, moral partnerships, and strategic humility. Only then will America be able to lead by example rather than by coercion or fear.

About the Author:

He has served as an advisor to various government agencies and international organizations on matters of global diplomacy.His research explores shifting alliances, geopolitical risks, and the role of the U.S. in a multipolar world. Widely respected in academic and policy circles, he frequently participates in international forums and expert panels.

Dr. Suresh is committed to fostering cross-cultural dialogue and developing policy solutions for global cooperation.

The post Failed American Foreign Policy first appeared on Desh-Videsh Media reaches 1.5 Millions+ Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi, and Indo-Caribbeans..