Yusuf CanWashington faces a key moment in its foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East and its broader global approach. In Iraq, Gaza, and now in Syria, for decades, the US has oscillated between prioritizing short-term gains and maintaining military hegemony at the expense of long-term principles and, indeed, stability. The US's fixation on primacy has not only <a fr-original-style="" href="https://quincyinst.org/research/ending-americas-misguided-policy-of-middle-east-domination/?utm_source=chatgpt.com#executive-summary" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">destabilized</a> regions like the Middle East and helped <a fr-original-style="" href="https://quincyinst.org/research/ending-americas-misguided-policy-of-middle-east-domination/?utm_source=chatgpt.com#executive-summary" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">exacerbate</a> authoritarianism and radicalism but also eroded global trust in the US. A true paradigm shift in US foreign policy is urgently needed—one that balances national security interests but does it while ensuring international solidarity and accountability, even when it feels uncomfortable.September 11, 2001, marked a turning point for the US. The subsequent "War on Terror" redefined American foreign policy and society, often with dire consequences for regional stability, especially in the Middle East. The invasion of Iraq, launched under the pretext of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be <a fr-original-style="" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/&ved=2ahUKEwjXyPCglaqKAxXLFVkFHQoAAYoQFnoECCEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3KxEWls_p57N237Wl4e94V" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">untrue</a>, destabilized the country, fueled extremist movements, and deepened sectarian divides. An invasion based on a falsehood epitomized a pattern of prioritizing immediate objectives and corporate gains over long-term stability and effective foreign policy, in addition to drastically hurting Washington’s image.Two decades later, Israel’s war in Gaza offers another stark example of US myopia. Driven by politics and unwavering support for the Netanyahu government, US foreign policy often overlooked broader principles of justice and human rights as well as the long-term impacts. It’s shortsighted and counterproductive. The unwavering support for Israel has basically <a fr-original-style="" href="https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/united-states-rapidly-losing-arab-hearts-and-minds-through-gaza-war-while" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">destroyed</a> the US image in the Arab world. The dramatic US opposition to International Criminal Court (ICC) <a fr-original-style="" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/22/iraq-war-wmds-an-intelligence-failure-or-white-house-spin/&ved=2ahUKEwjXyPCglaqKAxXLFVkFHQoAAYoQFnoECCEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3KxEWls_p57N237Wl4e94V" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">actions</a>—such as its arrest warrants for Israeli leaders over alleged war crimes—is emblematic of this unwillingness to uphold international accountability. President Biden's <a fr-original-style="" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c704y7gwr95o?utm_source=chatgpt.com" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">labeling</a> of the arrest warrants as "outrageous" and Secretary of State Blinken's <a fr-original-style="" href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c704y7gwr95o?utm_source=chatgpt.com" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">promises</a> of potential sanctions against the ICC further reflect a prioritization of political alliances over justice and long-term goals.Such reactions do not impact the long-term vision. Instead of strengthening the US's global standing, they bolster the idea that a “rules-based global order” never existed. By threatening measures like <a fr-original-style="" href="https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-lawmakers-hague-invasion-act-what-is-it" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">invoking</a> the "Hague Invasion Act," the US undermined the very global norms and institutions it once championed, eroding the foundations of the international order. This weakens multilateral mechanisms and sends a dangerous signal that accountability is secondary to political expediency, further isolating the US.<h2 fr-original-style="" style="margin: 0px; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.85); font-weight: 500; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box;">'America First' is an illusion</h2>President-elect Donald Trump’s "America First" agenda, which promises to disentangle the US from costly global entanglements, isn’t the viable alternative to the old Washington consensus that would benefit the US. Instead, it embraces aggressive unilateralism, prioritizing narrow self-interests while disregarding issues that need&nbsp;global collaboration, such as migration, climate change, and inequality. The Biden administration, though more aligned with traditional liberal internationalism, has not gone far enough in rethinking US foreign policy. A genuinely transformative approach must move beyond both illiberal hegemony and nostalgic liberalism.Beyond the Middle East, US foreign policy remains tethered to neoliberal economic frameworks prioritizing corporate profits over global equity. The Biden administration’s efforts to address these issues, such as rethinking globalization's impact on American workers, are only minor steps in the right direction. It’s not enough. Reforming institutions like the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and even the United Nations, whose effectiveness in solving international problems is <a fr-original-style="" href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/09/21/international-cooperation-welcomed-across-14-advanced-economies/" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">questioned</a> by many, to empower developing nations and alleviate debt burdens would signal a commitment to global solidarity. And only fundamental reforms would indicate that the US is willing to take responsibility.However, such reforms must be decoupled from the lens of strategic competition. The US has often framed its global engagements, particularly in regions like the Middle East, as countermeasures against rivals like China and Russia. This zero-sum approach&nbsp;undercuts opportunities for cooperation on shared challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and economic instability.Instead of clinging to primacy, Washington could embrace its role as a partner and not a bully in a rules-based global order. Addressing existential threats like climate change and nuclear proliferation requires collaboration, not confrontation. The Paris Climate Deal and the Iran Nuclear Deal are two recent examples. For instance, working with China or India on climate initiatives and sustainable development in underserved regions could build trust and pave the way for broader cooperation. Reevaluating the US’s relationships with authoritarian allies, whether in the Middle East or beyond, is also crucial. A genuine <a fr-original-style="" href="https://warontherocks.com/2024/09/how-syria-broke-turkey/" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">prioritization</a> of human rights and democratic values over short-term strategic alliances with governments that oppress their people would help restore credibility and align foreign policy with global principles. In other words, while this transition may invite criticism as a retreat from traditional dominance, it reflects a more sustainable and equitable path forward.&nbsp;<h2 fr-original-style="" style="margin: 0px; color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.85); font-weight: 500; padding: 0px; box-sizing: border-box;">Domestic renewal is necessary</h2>All in all, a successful foreign policy overhaul begins at home. <a fr-original-style="" href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">Polarization</a> and legalized corruption, such as campaign finance laws and insider trading in the US Congress, undermine the US’s ability to lead by example. <a fr-original-style="" href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kylemullins/2024/11/04/the-billions-behind-the-2024-presidential-election/" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">Billions</a> spent during election campaigns indicate not a democracy but an oligarchy and show that campaign finance reform and measures to reduce the influence of elite interests are critical to fostering a healthier democracy, but more importantly, leading by example. Domestically rooted accountability, coupled with international commitments to justice and accountability, would strengthen the US’s leverage in global matters beyond military dominance.Washington faces a choice: perpetuate a cycle of military dominance and strategic myopia or embrace a transformative vision rooted in accountability, cooperation, and shared prosperity. Leading multilateral initiatives in conflict zones like Syria, reforming global economic institutions, and addressing climate change collaboratively are not just moral imperatives but strategic necessities for revitalizing US leadership on the global stage. The US can either pursue a fairer international order or cling to its pursuit of global dominance—but it <a fr-original-style="" href="https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-foreign-policy-hegemony-or-stability-not-both/5582758?utm_source=chatgpt.com" style="color: rgb(9, 9, 9); text-decoration: none; background-color: transparent; outline: none; cursor: pointer; transition: color 0.3s; touch-action: manipulation; user-select: auto; box-sizing: border-box;" target="_blank">cannot</a> achieve both. A system designed to perpetuate American primacy is inherently undemocratic on an international scale and fails to address the needs of those most marginalized by the international framework, including many here at home. In Washington, many defenders of the status quo mistakenly equate reducing US military dominance with withdrawal or isolationism. By prioritizing dialogue over confrontation and people over governments, the US can redefine its role in a tumultuous world. This shift requires&nbsp;political courage and a commitment to long-term principles, but the rewards—stability, credibility, and a reinvigorated global order—are well worth the effort.

Aposto World

As Donald Trump is set to sit in the Oval Office once again, this time facing much less resistance, the world is watching signs of what a new term would bring. Trump's general vision is understood to be a mix of "America-first", isolationism, and zero-sum confrontations with perceived threats such as China, Russia and Iran. But are these goals worth pursuing, and if they are, how consistent are they?

Recalibrating US foreign policy in the Middle East

<span fr-original-class="customBullet" fr-original-style="font-size: 24px; line-height: 12px; vertical-align: middle; display: inline-block;" style="font-size: 24px; line-height: 12px; vertical-align: middle; display: inline-block; box-sizing: border-box;">•&nbsp;&nbsp; Korea tensions, rockets:&nbsp;Amidst allegations of helping Russia with its invasion of Ukraine, North Korea launched its 12th missile test of the year, this time launching intercontinental missiles.<ul fr-original-style="padding-inline-start: 20px;" style="padding-inline-start: 20px; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1em; box-sizing: border-box;"><li fr-original-style="" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Statement:&nbsp;The test drew criticism from the West, as US, and EU condemned the launch. EU’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell in a statement described the launch as "DPRK’s continued intention to develop the means to deliver weapons of mass destruction," and called it a violation of UN Security Council resolutions, "as is the DPRK’s deployment of troops and provision of arms to Russia in support of its war of aggression against Ukraine, in violation of the UN Charter and fundamental principles of international law."</li></ul>

weapons of ma destruction ile ilgili hikayeler