By Adem Kılıç, Political Scientist
The US recently published its new ‘National Security Strategy Document,’ which sets out its defense and foreign policy direction.
Although the strategy document emphasizes the Trump administration’s global perspective and non-interventionist policies centered on ‘regional dominance’ and ‘the nation-state concept,’ the world is witnessing the almost complete opposite of these statements being implemented on the ground.
The Strategy Document also claims that the Western Hemisphere has been reinstated as the primary geopolitical priority for the US, while a balancing policy will be applied in other regions.
How realistic are the goals outlined in the document?
The document’s stated goal of re-establishing US supremacy in the Western Hemisphere is reminiscent of Trump’s attempt to implement the Monroe Doctrine.
The Strategy Document clearly sets out the goal of re-establishing US ‘dominance’ in the Western Hemisphere.
In this context, the objectives of preventing foreign influence in the Western Hemisphere, combating drug trafficking and irregular migration, and supporting ‘special economic’ models are highlighted.
Looking at these three points, it appears that Trump’s actions, both during his first term and the first year of his second term, are consistent with the strategic document.
Indeed, Trump pursued an aggressive policy, primarily involving occupation, in areas such as Greenland, the Gulf of Mexico and the Panama Canal, where he claimed that China and Russia’s presence was increasing, and took serious steps to reduce the presence of these countries there.
Furthermore, policies regarding Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia, where he also claims that China and Russia’s presence has increased and which are even linked to drug trafficking, provide references in terms of the document’s reflections on the ground.
Trump’s support for right-wing governments in Latin America and the $40 billion bailout package he provided to Argentina also demonstrate the document’s alignment with on-the-ground practices.
Military presence and priorities
On the other hand, the document also proposes shifting the US military’s priorities to the Western Hemisphere.
This coincides with increased lethal operations in the Caribbean and Atlantic and the military build-up around Venezuela.
At this point, it also brings back speculation that Washington could use force to overthrow the Maduro regime in Venezuela.
On the other hand, one of the most important points of the document is that, unlike previous US strategies, Trump does not frame China as the primary threat. However, the document still draws attention to the importance of economic competition in Asia.
The role that Japan, South Korea and India will play in Indo-Pacific security is particularly emphasized, and in this regard, the US aims to strengthen these countries, primarily India, in order to counterbalance China.
However, on these points, although these objectives are consistent with field operations, the document also devotes considerable space to measures for military confrontation with China.
Hindu-Pacific and Taiwan
The Strategy Document refers to Taiwan’s role in the global semiconductor supply chain, the potential for Beijing to gain complete control of the region should China take over, the importance of dominance in the South China Sea, and areas that could pose risks to global trade, including the Taiwan Strait.
Therefore, the document defines deterring conflict over Taiwan through ‘military superiority’ as a priority for the US and sets the goal of increasing defense spending by its allies in the region, primarily India, South Korea and Japan.
Criticism of Europe and the transfer of the security burden
The document draws attention to harsh criticism of Europe, primarily regarding its internal policies.
The strategy harshly criticizes Europe for restricting freedom of expression, suppressing political opposition, and failing in migration management.
Bold statements such as ‘the possibility of the collapse of civilization’ reflect the Trump administration’s hardening stance towards Europe.
The document criticizes Europeans’ stance on the war in Ukraine, emphasizing that it is in the fundamental interest of the US to ‘end the conflict.’ Washington’s approach, which implied that Russia could continue to control some areas in eastern Ukraine, had drawn criticism in European capitals.
The strategy clearly emphasizes that Europe must take responsibility for its own defense, signaling that the US may withdraw its security umbrella from the continent.
The Middle East and Israel
The sections of the strategy document concerning the Middle East state that, apart from ‘Israel’s security,’ the Middle East is no longer the United States’ primary strategic priority.
The reasons given for this are: increased US energy production, a relative decrease in conflicts in the region outside of Israel, the Gaza ceasefire, and the effects of operations targeting Iran’s nuclear program.
The document also argues that the Middle East has become an attractive center for new investments, including artificial intelligence. However, the reality in the region is still shaped by crises such as increasing violence in the Palestinian territories, Lebanon-Israel tensions, and instability caused by terrorist organizations in Syria.
Despite this shift in tone, it is emphasized that Washington’s fundamental interests, such as guaranteeing Israel’s security and maintaining control over energy resources and sea lanes in the region, remain unchanged.
The document clearly states that the US will not impose democracy or social transformation on other countries. This approach points to a foreign policy centered on the nation-state, mindful of historical and cultural differences, and non-interventionist.
However, at the same time, the US is signaling that it will intervene ‘if necessary’, drawing attention to the expansionist policies of China and Russia.
Conclusion
The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy redefines the United States’ global priorities, emphasizing a return to the Western Hemisphere, reduced interventionism, recalibration of competition with China, and a more distant relationship with Europe.
The strategy document attempts to demonstrate that Washington no longer wishes to pursue costly foreign engagements and that a national interest-focused ‘flexible realism’ approach is guiding its foreign policy.
However, the gap between this rhetoric and the objectives outlined in the analysis clearly indicates that the document will remain merely theoretical.