Ethics and Politics

8. Foreign Policy & International Relations (WIP)

America First realism with selective Western imperialism. Prioritize U.S. sovereignty, security, cultural cohesion, and manufacturing strength. Engage forcefully against direct threats (especially Iran and extremist Islam) while avoiding open-ended nation-building. Participate in alliances and institutions only when they clearly serve American interests.

Interventionism vs Non-Intervention

  • Direct intervention justified in areas of clear U.S. strategic interest, particularly against direct enemies such as Iran.

  • Skeptical of nation-building and regime change due to poor historical track records.

  • Favors Western imperialism/colonialism against openly hostile, ethically inferior cultures. Non-hostile cultures should generally be left alone.

Alliances & NATO

  • Reject any alliance that erodes U.S. sovereignty or harms American interests.

  • Participate only when it clearly strengthens U.S. security.

  • Maintain diplomacy, but never capitulate to allies’ demands or submit to foreign tribunals.

Trade & Economics

  • Prioritize and incentivize American manufacturing.

  • Imports should ideally be structured with reciprocal export benefits.

  • Tariffs are good in theory but questionable in practice.

  • Prefer domestic trade and place regulations/restrictions on outsourced labor.

  • Treat China as a dangerous strategic rival; trade may continue under the above reciprocal and national-interest conditions.

Immigration & Borders

  • Cultural homogeneity is ideal for societal strength. Diversity has generally proven negative in the short-to-mid term by fostering tribalism and value clashes.

  • Immigration is not inherently virtuous. Strictly vet and admit only those who fit the shared Western value structure; cultural assimilation is paramount.

  • Significantly stronger border security, including lethal force as a deterrent in some cases.

  • Forceful removal of illegal immigrants (incentives secondary).

  • Abolish birthright citizenship prospectively (existing legal citizenships unaffected).

Israel & Middle East

  • Strong support for Israel as the frontline defense against the Iranian regime and extremist Islam.

  • Aggressive policy toward Iran: obliterate the Islamic regime and its state-sponsored terror allies while sparing civilian populations where possible.

  • Goal of eradicating extremist Islam as a global force.

Russia, Ukraine, China/Taiwan

  • Russia is an aggressor; support nations fighting it.

  • Treat Russia and China as strategic adversaries seeking to destabilize the U.S.

  • Prioritize intelligence, cybersecurity, and strength-based responses.

Global Institutions (UN, WHO, ICC, climate accords)

  • Participate only if they directly benefit U.S. interests.

  • Never submit to international tribunals, global courts, or standards that override U.S. sovereignty.

  • Follow American law and national interest above globalist bureaucracy.

Military Spending & Projection

  • Current high spending is acceptable; increase if needed for capability gaps.

  • Homeland defense is priority #1, but global power projection and offensive deterrence are often necessary extensions of that goal.

Nuclear & WMD

  • Proliferation cannot be fully reversed.

  • Rely on mutual assured deterrence.

  • Prevent enemy proliferation through military means when safely possible.

  • Maintain a strong U.S. nuclear posture.

Interventionism vs Non-Intervention: 

Should the US engage in foreign military interventions, nation-building, or regime change? When (if ever) is it justified?

The United States should intervene militarily when it directly advances American security and national interest (example: confronting Iran as a hostile, extremist regime that attacks U.S. interests and allies). Nation-building and idealistic regime-change projects should be avoided because they have a poor track record. Against openly hostile cultures that reject Western norms and threaten the West, decisive force, including forms of imperialism, can be justified. Non-hostile societies should generally be left alone.

1. National interest comes first

Foreign policy exists to protect the security, prosperity, and continuity of the United States and its people. Interventions are tools, not moral crusades. Realist thinking holds that great powers should act when core interests are at stake and stay out when they are not. Spreading democracy or “fixing” other societies is secondary and often counterproductive.

2. Nation-building and open-ended regime change have failed repeatedly

Recent major U.S. efforts show a clear pattern:

  • Military victory is often achievable.

  • Turning the conquered country into a stable, friendly, functional democracy almost never is.

  • The result is usually prolonged insurgency, state collapse, massive cost in blood and money, and sometimes a worse strategic outcome (power vacuums filled by enemies).

3. Iran is a direct, ongoing threat

Iran funds, arms, and directs proxy forces that have attacked U.S. troops, shipping, and allies. It pursues nuclear capabilities, plots assassinations (including on U.S. soil), and openly calls for the destruction of Israel, a key partner. This is not a distant humanitarian issue; it is a concrete security problem.

4. Cultural and civilizational reality matters

Some societies and regimes are structured around values (theocratic absolutism, jihadist expansion, total rejection of reciprocal norms) that make peaceful coexistence or successful liberal nation-building extremely difficult. When such forces are actively hostile, containment or decisive weakening can be more realistic than transformation.

5. Non-hostile societies should be left alone

There is no national-interest justification for reconstructing societies that are not attacking or meaningfully threatening the United States. Restraint preserves resources and avoids unnecessary enemies.

Supporting Evidence and Sources

Nation-building / regime-change failures

  • Multiple academic and policy reviews (Cato Institute analyses, Army War College assessments, Hoover Institution reviews) document that forced regime-change operations rarely achieve lasting political or security goals. Iraq (2003), Afghanistan (2001–2021), and Libya (2011) are the clearest recent cases: rapid military success followed by prolonged instability, high costs, and strategic disappointment.

  • Toppling a regime is relatively easy; building a replacement that is stable, competent, and aligned with U.S. interests has proven extremely difficult.

  1. Benjamin Denison, “The Failure of Regime-Change Operations” – Cato Institute https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/more-things-change-more-they-stay-same-failure-regime-change-operations

  2. “Why Can’t America Win Its Wars?” – Hoover Institution https://www.hoover.org/research/why-cant-america-win-its-wars

  3. C.J. Sullivan, “State-Building: America’s Foreign Policy Challenge” – U.S. Army War College Parameters https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2824&context=parameters

  4. “Academics Say U.S. Interventions to Force Regime Change Often Fail” – Washington Diplomat https://washdiplomat.com/academics-say-u-s-interventions-to-force-regime-change-often-fail/

  5. Council on Foreign Relations – Middle East timeline and analysis (Iraq & Libya sections) https://www.cfr.org/education/learn/reading/middle-east-timeline

Iran as a concrete threat

  • U.S. Intelligence Community threat assessments and FBI reporting describe Iran’s use of proxies (Hezbollah, Houthis, Iraqi militias), support for attacks on U.S. forces, assassination plots on U.S. soil, and continued nuclear advancement.

  • Iran’s leadership has repeatedly framed its project in civilizational and religious terms hostile to the U.S. and Israel. This is not abstract ideology; it is operationalized through funding, weapons, and directed violence.

  1. U.S. Intelligence Community – Annual Threat Assessment (Iran section) https://www.iranwatch.org/library/governments/united-states/executive-branch/director-national-intelligence/annual-threat-assessment-us-intelligence-community-1

  2. FBI – “The Iran Threat” https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/counterintelligence/the-iran-threat

  3. Atlantic Council – “After proxies and nuclear program threats, Iran may turn to transnational terrorism” https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/increasing-threat-iran-transnational-terrorism/

  4. ADL – “The Iranian Nuclear Threat: Why it Matters” https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheet/iranian-nuclear-threat-why-it-matters

  5. Washington Institute – “Policy Steps to Prevent a Nuclear Iran” https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/sites/default/files/pdf/PolicyNote154TransitionSingh.pdf

Realist framework

  • Classical and modern realist thinkers (and contemporary realist policy writing) argue that great powers should balance against genuine threats in important regions and avoid open-ended projects in secondary areas. Selective, interest-driven intervention is distinguished from both isolationism and liberal interventionism.

  • Post-colonial outcomes are mixed and heavily debated. What is less debated is that attempts to rapidly liberalize or democratize societies with deep theocratic, tribal, or anti-Western structures have high failure rates when the local elite and population do not already share core institutional norms. This underpins the distinction between “hostile and incompatible” versus “non-hostile.”

  1. Sebastian Rosato, “A Realist Foreign Policy for the United States” – Perspectives on Politics https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/realist-foreign-policy-for-the-united-states/AF0AF37406D1D2D297B815752AA95FBE

  2. Program for the Study of Realist Foreign Policy – Mershon Center, Ohio State University https://mershoncenter.osu.edu/programs/program-study-realist-foreign-policy

  3. “Regaining a Realistic Foreign Policy” – Hoover Institution https://www.hoover.org/research/regaining-realistic-foreign-policy

Conclusion

This position is consistent with negative-rights realism applied internationally: the U.S. government exists first to protect the rights and security of its own citizens. It may use force against external actors who systematically violate those interests. It has no general duty to reconstruct foreign societies, and history shows that attempting to do so often produces more rights violations (chaos, terrorism, refugee flows, wasted resources) than it prevents.

Alliances & NATO: 

Keep, expand, reform, or dissolve current alliances?

I believe that we should not be a part of or contributor to any alliance that erodes the sovereignty of our nation and the best interests of our people. We should join them if they increase the security and interests of our nation. Yes, we should aim to be diplomatic and foster foreign relations, but our principles must come first as a nation, and we should not capitulate to allies demands or be held in any foreign tribunal.

Trade & Economics:

Free trade/globalization, protectionism/tariffs, or autarky? China policy?

We should aim to bolster American manufacturing wherever possible. All imports that we bring in to the country should have some deal structure that we are also exporting to them, to remain mutually beneficial. Tariffs are good in theory, questionable in practice. We should prioritize and incentivize domestic trade. There regulations and restrictions for outsourced labor. We need to treat China as a dangerous rival, trade can continue following the previous statements.

Immigration & Borders:

Levels of immigration, criteria (skills, culture, asylum), border security?

I believe the best society is one that is culturally homogenous. “Diversity”, while it can be interesting and positive in places, has proven to be a generally negative thing in each society it exists, at least in the short to mid term. I believe that culture mashing leads to tribalism, racism, and cultural clashes of ideals, principles, and shared beliefs. For a nation or society to be its strongest, it’s populace must be culturally similar in their beliefs, ethics, and values. Following this, I don’t believe immigration to be a virtuous thing, or necessarily protected. If we do accept immigrants, we should be vetting and importing people that fit into our shared western value structure. Cultural assimilation is paramount. Border security should be significantly higher than it is now, with lethal force used as a deterrent in some cases. Illegal immigrants should be removed from the country forcefully, incentives can be used for willing deportation, but should not be relied upon for removal. Birthright citizenship should be abolished. It should not affect anyone’s retroactive status if they followed laws on the books to achieve their citizenship prior, but after an amendment is made, it should affect the future going forward.

Israel & Middle East:

Level of support for Israel, approach to Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.?

We should be supporting Israel as they are the first line of western defense against the barbaric Islamic Republic and the forces of terror in the region. Extremist Islam should be eradicated. We should be using more force toward Iran, I believe that our current administration is being too soft. Its people should be spared of course, but the Islamic regime should be obliterated along with all allies of state sponsored, anti-western terror. We should support Israel as far as is needed to completely erase the stain of extremist Islam from the world.

Russia, Ukraine, China/Taiwan:

Stance on ongoing conflicts and great power competition?

Russia is an aggressor and should be fought against by helping countries that fight them. Russia and China are enemies insofar as they want to destabilize the USA. We need to advance our intelligence and cybersecurity to fight their ever growing presence. We need to fight hostility with strength and force.

Global Institutions:

UN, WHO, ICC, climate accords — support, reform, withdraw?

This follows my position on Alliances & NATO. We should only be contributing to global institutions that benefit the United States and that are positive for our best interests. If we wish to contribute to these, we can, but we should not be held to any standard, tribunal, or global court for our sovereign actions. We should not capitulate to any international law. We follow United States law and what is best for our people and our shared values, no globalist bureaucrats or courts should tell us what or what not to do.

Military Spending & Projection:

Increase, maintain, or cut? Focus on defense of homeland vs global

power projection?

Our current spending is very high, and I am fine with it. If we need more firepower or are lacking in any visible way in our campaigns, it should be raised, but I am not versed in the empirics of military spending enough to say further. Our homeland’s defense is always first, however, global power often is married to homeland protection. Offensive deterrence and swift strikes go hand-in-hand with protecting our country.

Nuclear & WMD:

Policy on proliferation, first use, deterrence?

Nuclear proliferation is unfortunate, but it can never be reversed. Progress will always be made, with all technologies, nuclear or otherwise. Mutual deterrence seems to be the only way that we would prevent catastrophe. Our enemies should be militarily prevented from proliferating nuclear advancement if we are capable of safely doing so.