America at 250: Independent no more?

This year marks the 250th anniversary of the American War of Independence. Yet, at this historic milestone, the US, propelled by Israel lobbying forces, launched large-scale military strikes against the sovereign state of Iran thousands of miles away that has never invaded the US or exploited American taxpayers.

The deliberate attack on Iran ultimately led the latter to close the Strait of Hormuz — a vital maritime corridor that had long remained open and serves as one of the world’s most important routes for global oil and gas transportation. The resulting disruption sent shockwaves through global energy markets, leaving countries around the world to bear the costs of the US-Israeli military campaign.

When America led by example

From the American Revolution 250 years ago to today’s war with Iran, the US has clearly departed from its traditional political trajectory. Once regarded as a champion and model of the international order, it has increasingly become a controversial military proxy of Israel. This transformation deserves careful reflection.

In April 1775, farmers, merchants and artisans gathered on Lexington Green to start the Revolutionary War against an unjust rule. That injustice came from the British empire, whose colonial government, separated from the colonies by an ocean, imposed heavy taxation and exercised distant imperial control. Through the Revolutionary War, the Treaty of Paris, and the drafting of the US constitution, America’s founders established a nation based on sovereignty and independence rather than subordination and domination.

At its core, the American Revolution was a struggle for political autonomy and self-government. The founders believed that American citizens and taxpayers should be free from the direct or indirect control of any foreign power — whether the British empire or any other external force — so that Americans themselves could determine the nation’s future.

For much of its history after independence, the US viewed itself as fundamentally different from traditional empires. Unlike the European colonial empires, Imperial Japan, or later the Red Soviet empire, America did not initially define itself through military conquest and territorial expansion. Guided by the principle of political independence, the nation rapidly achieved economic independence and industrial growth, eventually emerging as a leading force in the second industrial revolution. 

In its relations with the outside world, the US helped dismantle the old colonial empires following its victories in the two world wars and sought to construct an international order centred on freedom and openness. After the First World War, President Wilson’s Fourteen Points expanded the principle of national self-determination, inspiring anti-colonial movements around the globe.  Following the Second World War, the Marshall Plan played a pivotal role in Europe’s economic reconstruction while consolidating America’s global leadership.

At the same time, the US helped establish the United Nations and other international institutions, promoting international peace, economic development and global cooperation through more representative and rules-based mechanisms. America’s higher education, scientific innovation, industrial vitality and cultural creativity together generated an unparalleled form of global soft power. For elites in many countries, the US became not only a model of constitutional government but also a symbol of economic opportunity, technological innovation, and individual liberty.

By combining material strength with political legitimacy — and relying more on attraction and persuasion than coercion — the US built durable alliances, attracted immigrants and talented individuals from around the world, fostered scientific and technological advancement, and extended its influence far beyond what military power alone could achieve.

From power to proxy

As the US commemorates the 250th anniversary of its independence, its war against Iran has ended as a near-complete failure. Politically, the war left the US more isolated than at any point in recent history. From NATO allies across the Atlantic to partners in the Pacific such as Japan and South Korea, virtually none responded to Washington’s call to support the campaign. Such widespread reluctance is highly unusual in the post-Second World War era, during which America’s global political, military, and diplomatic strategy has relied heavily on alliance networks.

Militarily, American bases in the Persian Gulf suffered significant damage and even destruction, creating an unprecedented situation since the Second World War. This not only weakened the US’s military advantage in parts of the Gulf and forced a retrenchment of its deployments, but also transformed US military installations from security providers into security liabilities for their host countries. One indication of this shift is that negotiations between the US and Iran reportedly focused on the passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz rather than military warships.

Diplomatically, Washington subsequently proposed providing Iran with various forms of economic compensation or reconstruction assistance, whether euphemised as investment or postwar rebuilding. To some extent, this reflected an acknowledgement that military action alone could not resolve the crisis and that economic measures had become necessary to de-escalate tensions.

Most fundamentally, this war was not fought primarily for American interests but constituted a proxy war serving Israel. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio himself openly acknowledged, the US was effectively fighting on Israel’s behalf. Trump’s supporter and social media commentator Mike Cernovich described that  “Rubio’s comments are a record scratch moment” and “this is a sea change in foreign policy”. The criticism surrounding the Trump administration’s proxy war for Israel raises a deeper question: since the American Revolution, has the US remained capable of maintaining an independent foreign policy in the face of organised Israeli lobbying, political donations, commercial interests, media influence, military cooperation and ideological influence?

The military campaign against Iran has also prompted renewed reflection on America’s overseas wars since the end of the Cold War. Strikingly, nearly every major US military intervention since 2000 has taken place in the Middle East, North Africa, or the broader Muslim world — including Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and now Iran. 

Each intervention was justified by appeals to counterterrorism, weapons of mass destruction, or the promotion of democracy against dictatorship. Yet each of these justifications or evidence has proved to be false or fake — from Colin Powell’s presentation before the UN Security Council in 2003 of what later proved to be false evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, to the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan, Libya’s fragmentation into competing militias, the rise of the former leader of al-Nusra as Syria’s current president, and the emergence of a more hardline government in Iran.

Unlike Britain in 1775 and Israel today, neither Iraq nor Iran occupied American territory or exploited American taxpayers. Nevertheless, the US has devoted enormous human, military, and financial resources to wars in the distant Middle East after the Cold War. The Iran war further exposes the underlying logic of America’s military interventions in the region: namely, that they have effectively functioned as proxy wars for Israel. From Iraq to today’s strikes on Iran, a continuous strategic pattern can be discerned.

Many of these wars and conflicts, directly or indirectly, are closely connected to the Palestinian question, while the US has repeatedly acted as Israel’s proxy in weakening or containing actors viewed as obstacles to Israel’s occupation or expansion. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein was closely linked to his longstanding support for the Palestinian cause and Iraq’s nuclear ambitions — a concern previously demonstrated by Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor in the 1980s.

Likewise, the war against Iran is presented as the culmination of Israel’s long-term strategic expansionism in the Middle East. As American commentator Tucker Carlson argued in responding to the Iran war, the war was not fought to protect American national security or to make the US safer or more prosperous. Indeed, it was never fundamentally about weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, or chemical and biological weapons. Rather, the war occurred because Israel wanted it to occur.

For the US, it is particularly unfortunate that, on the 250th anniversary of its founding, it elected a businessman president driven primarily by transactional interests. For Israel, however, this represented a historic opportunity. Through the substantial political donations made by Las Vegas casino magnate Miriam Adelson to Donald Trump, Israel was able to exert significant influence over American policy toward Palestine and its supporters — from relocating the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem to ultimately initiating military action against Iran.

Make America independent again

The US achieved political liberation through the War of Independence by freeing itself from British colonial rule. It subsequently attained a second form of independence through economic development and technological innovation, emerging as a global power. Since the end of the Cold War, however, American power has increasingly been constrained by Israeli lobbying, with the country at times acting as a proxy for Israel in overseas conflicts. 

American taxpayers are once again burdened by foreign influence, as their tax dollars finance proxy wars. In this sense, the US risks returning to a condition reminiscent of the one it sought to escape during the Revolutionary era — external influence over its political decision-making — while bearing even greater costs. In the long run, if Israeli lobbying continues to dominate American politics, the US could become the first empire in history whose decline is driven primarily by lobbying politics, a trajectory that the Iran war may come to symbolise.

The continuing debate over the Iran war within the US may be constructive. The controversy surrounding the conflict could encourage Americans to reconsider the profound impact of foreign lobbying on US national interests, reduce or ultimately eliminate foreign influence over US policymaking, and bring an end to proxy wars. Such a development would help the US regain greater political independence while reducing the burdens borne by American taxpayers and the suffering endured by people in other countries.

Related: How Trump’s Iran war boosted Beijing | Iran war: The unnecessary war that strengthened Iran