Where is American diplomacy heading? MAGA/MEGA $ Economy first.

How will the reconfiguration of American strategy and tactics affect international relations?

In June 2024, the Armenian Association of Political Scientists published an article entitled “What changes can be expected in US foreign policy?” (What changes can be expected in US foreign policy).

We wrote that, according to many American experts, the process of restructuring the geopolitical space and transforming the model and content of globalization is underway. US foreign policy faces serious questions, they noted, pointing to the war in Ukraine and the Middle East, relations with China, and global economic problems. It is noteworthy that both Democrats and Republicans spoke about the need to revise foreign policy. Confirming the conclusion that the era of US global dominance is over, they pointed out a serious discrepancy between the goals and means of the United States. The idea that the US should put its interests above its global commitments, which was put on the agenda during Trump’s first presidency, was considered paramount.

Calibrating US foreign policy, many of them argued, had to start with setting priorities. Washington was supposed to establish a clear division of labor between itself and its security partners, with allies shouldering most of the burden. Since returning to the White House, Donald Trump has repeatedly promoted this idea, believing that Washington desperately needs a new type of diplomacy.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States enjoyed a preponderance that was unthinkable for previous great powers. Today, however, the US no longer has the capabilities to fight and defeat two major adversaries simultaneously, as the last two national defense strategies acknowledge. Washington cannot force another great power to collapse through sanctions. Great power war, which had been an absent threat for decades, is once again a real possibility.

MAGA/MEGA $ Economy first.

ГWhen talking about US foreign policy, it is important to keep in mind the enormous influence of domestic factors, primarily economic ones. Therefore, the main objective of American policy is to strengthen and grow the American economy. Speaking at a conference of the American Campass think tank, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that in shaping the country's foreign policy, Washington will be guided primarily by the national interests of the United States, and not by the existing world order. And the main component in the totality of these interests is economic interests. Rubio noted that the idea that foreign policy should be focused on supporting the international order or global goals has lost its relevance. US policy should be pragmatic and contribute to the development of the country.

In the article "A Program for Renewing America. The Imperative for a Renewed Economic Paradigm", published on 05.15.25 on the website of the Federation of American Scientists, it is noted that President Trump's tariff policy has caused significant turbulence and does not seem to have a consistent strategy, generating uncertainty for politicians, consumers, and businesses. This process has prompted other countries to seek alternative trade, financial, and defense mechanisms.

There is a view in Washington that it is necessary to revise the system of interaction with rivals and the functioning of alliances so that Washington does not have to assume a leadership role in opposing Beijing and Moscow simultaneously. The meaning of diplomacy is seen as a strategy of redistribution of forces in space and time so that countries do not have to undergo an overwhelming test of strength.

Today, in American assessments of the role of Beijing and Moscow, the strongest element is China, which is perceived as the main problem, both in terms of foreign policy and economics. In addition to its growing dominance in manufacturing, China is now competing with America in the field of technological leadership.

Therefore, it is not without reason that the US would not mind taking advantage of Russia's exhaustion as a result of military actions in Ukraine, seeking to defuse relations with Moscow, which would put Beijing at a disadvantage.

This process should begin with ending the conflict in Ukraine in a way that is beneficial to the US. Washington should be ready to force the Ukrainians to cede their territory when necessary. However, in the end, Kyiv must be strong enough to prevent Russia from advancing westward.

The White House considered a quick ceasefire a priority, especially since Trump is constantly reminded of his promises to stop military actions as soon as he takes the reins of power. And questions about a large-scale settlement in this case can be considered separately, even if it takes years with no guarantee of success.

But to date, Trump has not yet managed to achieve progress in resolving the Ukrainian conflict, and this is no accident. The formula he proposed does not suit either side. The Trump administration, eager to end the conflict as quickly as possible, is trying to persuade Ukraine and Russia to agree to a border that is clearly below the starting point for both sides.

The strategy is for the United States to pressure both sides to accept peace terms by forcing them to choose between accepting the current conflict line or risking further territorial losses and increased military and economic costs. A political settlement of the disputed territories should be postponed until future negotiations after the fighting ends. This would allow Russia and Ukraine to temporarily agree to a demarcation line while continuing to press their territorial claims both domestically and internationally. The problem with this coercive strategy, however, is that both Ukraine and Russia have rejected a U.S. offer to freeze fighting along the current conflict line, making it a de facto new border. The adversaries may continue to resist U.S. pressure rather than give up their territorial claims.

Trump and his administration have several options. 1. He can give in to Russia on its main demands. But is he going to do this? 2. He can leave the negotiation process. But what will be the consequences, how will he resolve issues related to Ukraine with the Europeans? 3. There is a third option: continue trying to pressure and threaten one side or the other. This is what Trump is currently doing, not shying away from rude and offensive expressions addressed to Putin and Zelensky. But so far this has not led to the desired result. Therefore, Trump stopped and took a break - let the parties fight some more.

Another area of ​​importance not only for the Middle East, but also directly for the South Caucasus, is US-Iranian relations and the results of the Israeli-Iranian air war. Iranian authorities openly state that Israel's attack on Iran is a joint Israeli-American project, and the negotiations were just a distraction. President Trump does not actually deny this, although he does not say so directly.

The US President said on June 20 that he was not going to ask Israel to stop the military campaign against Iran, giving the latter two weeks before Washington makes a decision on the situation in the Middle East. But many experts believe that Trump's statements both before the Israeli attack on Iran on the eve of the start of negotiations, and before the US strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, were nothing more than a smokescreen. On the night of June 22, the US struck Iran's nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Trump later addressed the nation and called the operation an “outstanding military success,” saying all three sites had been “completely destroyed” and the nuclear threat from the “primary sponsor of terrorism” had been eliminated.

The United States has sent both public and private signals to Iran calling for it to return to the negotiating table on its nuclear program, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday. But the use of U.S.-Iran talks as a distraction in preparation for military action has sent a troubling message not only to Iran but to everyone dealing with American diplomacy today.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, commenting on the U.S. attacks, said “the door to diplomacy should always be open, but this is not the case.” It was the United States, he said, that had betrayed diplomacy. Iran reserves the right to resist U.S. military aggression to protect its national interests and will take all measures to protect its security and the country’s interests “for as long as it deems necessary.” The US has dozens of military bases in Iraq, Syria, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan - more than 40 thousand soldiers within range of Iranian missiles. A map with ten specific targets has even been published. Priority targets could also include aircraft carriers in the region, a symbol of US power.

Another scenario for further developments could be an asymmetric response, an attempt by Iran to mine the Strait of Hormuz, locking the US fleet in the Persian Gulf and dealing a serious blow to global oil trade. Also, Iranian-backed groups, such as the Yemeni Houthis, could resume attacks on ships in the Red Sea and on facilities in Israel.

Cyberattacks on the US financial system, energy or logistics are also possible.

Were Donald Trump's targets only Iran's nuclear facilities, especially since US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told Trump that there was no evidence of Iran's intention to build an atomic bomb? When journalists asked the American president about this, he answered without batting an eyelid that the intelligence was wrong. Many experts believe that the true goals were to support Israel in the air war and attempt to overthrow the current government, civil war and the collapse of Iran as a multinational state. Such a scenario would undoubtedly appeal to Azerbaijan, which has repeatedly made claims at the state level about the so-called "Southern Azerbaijan". In September 2022, Joshua Kucera cited a quote from the Caliber.az website, associated with the Azerbaijani presidential administration, in the American EurasiaNet: "The Time Has Come: South Azerbaijan Must Leave Iran," reads the headline that appeared on August 26, 2022. A day later, an article appeared on the Haqqin.az website, associated with the Azerbaijani special services, under the headline "Southern Azerbaijan Seeks Independence!" It claims that Baku is ready to help this process, and the Azerbaijani government has enough resources to support a new wave of national liberation movement. One also remembers the statements of some Azerbaijani parliamentarians, for example Sabir Rustamkhanli, who called for the dismemberment of Iran, arguing that more than half of the population of this country are allegedly Azerbaijanis (Turks).

Whether Azerbaijan and Turkey will consider the situation created as a result of aggression against Iran as favorable for the implementation of these plans largely depends on what the US and Israel will do next, what the focus and scale of their actions will be. But the provocative policy aimed at initiating active separatist movements and creating chaos in this region will in any case lead to the most serious negative consequences for the entire South Caucasus and, first of all, for the Republic of Armenia.

The forecast of possible changes in the situation in the South Caucasus depends on the answer to these questions.