Lately I've been trying to sort through a nagging frustration I keep running into when thinking about American foreign policy. The frameworks that used to make sense, realism, liberal internationalism, all the familiar debates, now feel like they don't quite explain what we're doing anymore. For most of the Cold War and even after, there was at least a recognizable intellectual structure guiding policy. Realists like Kissinger emphasized stability and the balance of power. Liberal internationalists believed institutions and alliances could shape global norms.
One of the more recent and (my personal favorite) takes is conservative internationalism by Henry Nau, because his argument always struck me as an attempt to describe something deeply American and core to our liberal democracy. The United States has never been purely realist and it has never been purely idealist. Instead, it has usually tried to combine power with political purpose. We are a socially and ideologically motivated nation, unlike, let's say, China. The goal isn't just to maintain a balance of power but to expand a world where democratic states cooperate with each other. But not necessarily democracy building through bureaucratic heavyweights like the UN.
Trump and the Iran Problem
When Trump withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal negotiated under Obama, the administration replaced it with what became known as the "maximum pressure" campaign. Sanctions intensified, diplomatic pressure escalated, military threats became fully visible at the forefront. At first glance, that approach looks a lot like conservative internationalism. It relies heavily on coercive leverage to force negotiations. In theory, that's exactly what Nau meant by armed diplomacy. We love that.
But the more you think about it, the more something feels missing.