The rapidly shifting global landscape presents significant challenges for US foreign policy. The recent meeting in Riyadh between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov underscored the urgent need for diplomatic solutions, particularly regarding the conflict in Ukraine. As traditional grand strategies become less effective, the United States must reassess its approach to global affairs, ensuring its policies are both pragmatic and adaptable to changing geopolitical realities.

The discourse surrounding the Ukraine conflict highlights a crucial debate within US foreign policy: whether to prioritize peace or uphold longstanding principles against territorial expansion by force. Historically, the US has championed the idea that acquiring territory through aggression is illegitimate, a core tenet of the UN Charter. However, inconsistencies in the application of this principle-particularly in regions like Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan-have raised questions about the credibility of American foreign policy.

The US has, at times, contradicted its own stated values. The plight of Palestinians and the suffering of Iraqis and Afghans illustrate this disconnect. While Washington condemns Russia’s actions in Ukraine, its support for Israeli policies in occupied territories and past military interventions suggest a selective application of international norms. This inconsistency has fueled skepticism about America’s global leadership and has contributed to its declining influence in many parts of the world.

The current trajectory of US foreign policy suggests that its global influence is waning. While America still maintains a formidable military presence and a dominant role in international institutions, emerging financial strains threaten its capacity to sustain these engagements. An impending economic downturn could reduce funding for military and diplomatic initiatives, potentially limiting Washington’s ability to project power.

Furthermore, shifting alliances and the rise of new powers-such as China and a more assertive Russia-complicate US strategic calculations. The traditional balance-of-power paradigm, which once ensured American primacy, is proving inadequate in today’s multipolar world. To maintain relevance, the US must move away from outdated strategies and embrace a more flexible, pragmatic approach to foreign relations.

Nowhere is the need for recalibration more evident than in the Middle East. US policy in the region has long been shaped by conflicting interests, with Israel’s security concerns often taking precedence over broader regional stability. The controversial role of the Israel lobby in shaping American foreign policy, as highlighted by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, has contributed to a pattern of decisions that some argue are detrimental to both US and Israeli interests.

The invasion of Iraq serves as a stark example of misguided policies driven by narrow interests. The war not only claimed thousands of American lives but also inflicted immense suffering on Iraqi civilians, destabilizing the region and empowering extremist groups. Today, many Arab nations remain fragile states, their governance compromised by external interventions and internal mismanagement. While Washington may have sustained flawed policies for decades, ignoring the realities on the ground indefinitely is not a viable option.

A significant factor in Middle Eastern geopolitics is the persistence of authoritarian rule. Many Arab governments have suppressed public dissent to maintain stability, often with tacit or explicit US support. This has led to an uneasy paradox: while the US.advocates for democracy worldwide, it frequently supports authoritarian regimes in the Middle East to preserve short-term strategic interests.

The preference for authoritarian stability has led to tensions between the US and its regional partners. Proponents of these regimes argue that democratization would result in the election of leaders opposed to US interests, particularly regarding Israel. However, history has shown that authoritarian regimes are often brittle, appearing stable until they collapse. Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul has observed that “the longer a democracy survives, the less likely it will collapse, whereas the longer an autocracy survives, the more likely it will collapse.”

The Biden administration, like its predecessors, has often equated quiet with stability. However, this approach is shortsighted. The apparent calm in the Middle East may obscure deep-seated tensions that could erupt into open conflict. Recognizing these underlying dynamics is essential for crafting a more sustainable foreign policy.

Recent developments suggest a possible shift in US-Russia relations. While Washington and Moscow have long been adversaries, some leaders, including President Donald Trump, have expressed interest in a more pragmatic engagement. Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have indicated a willingness to enhance dialogue and foster economic cooperation, recognizing that Europe could serve as a venue for collaboration rather than confrontation.

However, this vision faces significant obstacles. Powerful interests-including the military-industrial complex and policymakers who benefit from perpetual conflict-stand in the way of any rapprochement. Achieving a new era of US-Russia cooperation will require overcoming these entrenched forces and demonstrating that diplomacy, rather than confrontation, can yield tangible benefits for both nations.

To navigate the challenges of a transforming world, the US must prioritize diplomacy over conflict and pragmatism over ideology. The military-industrial complex has historically thrived on prolonged conflicts, often at the expense of global stability and American interests. Breaking free from this cycle requires a fundamental shift in US strategic thinking.

Saudi Arabia, as a regional power, is uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in this transformation. By enhancing its commitment to diplomacy and sustainable development, Riyadh can contribute to regional stability, offering Washington a crucial partner in reorienting its Middle East policy. The US should seize this opportunity to recalibrate its approach, fostering collaboration rather than perpetuating endless conflicts.

Rethinking American foreign policy in the Middle East-and beyond-requires a commitment to diplomacy, sustainable engagement, and a genuine acknowledgment of the aspirations of all regional actors. By fostering cooperation and addressing the root causes of conflict, the US can contribute to a more peaceful and prosperous global order. The time for change is now, and the opportunity to adopt a transformative approach to foreign policy is within reach. If Washington fails to adapt, it risks further erosion of its global influence, leaving a vacuum that other powers will eagerly fill.

In the face of financial constraints, shifting alliances, and the limitations of outdated strategies, the US must embrace a forward-looking approach. Pragmatism, not ideology, should guide its decisions. By doing so, it can reclaim its role as a stabilizing force in the world, fostering a foreign policy that aligns with its professed values and strategic interests.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel