Amid growing geopolitical tensions, Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has raised urgent concerns about the United States’ increasingly unilateral and self-serving approach to foreign policy, particularly under the leadership of President Donald Trump.
Rubin argues that Washington’s pursuit of global dominance, often cloaked in diplomacy but driven by ambition, is undermining regional stability and encouraging a dangerous new norm in international affairs—one where might, not morality or multilateralism, dictates outcomes.
In an interview with ANI, Rubin critiqued Trump’s foreign policy style as one focused more on personal accolades, such as the Nobel Peace Prize, than on safeguarding long-term strategic interests.
“The problem with Donald Trump is that he doesn’t have a full sense of history,” Rubin said. “He’s prone to moral equivalence, placing U.S. national security interests below his ambitions.”
But Rubin’s criticism goes beyond the former president. His remarks cast a spotlight on a broader trend: America’s shifting posture toward neo-isolationism at home and aggressive expansionism abroad, a dangerous mix that is increasingly being mirrored by other powers, including adversaries and allies alike.
This, he warns, could become a self-fulfilling prophecy of global militarism, where the lines between diplomacy and domination are dangerously blurred.
Rubin warned that such an approach is not only destabilizing sensitive regions like South Asia and the Middle East, but it could also escalate existing tensions into full-blown regional wars.
“If Trump continues to refuse to distinguish between right and wrong, the conflicts between countries like Pakistan and India, or Israel and Iran, are going to worsen before they improve.”
The recent White House meeting with Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, General Asim Munir, highlighted this imbalance. Rubin noted Trump’s admiration for powerful military figures—especially those like Munir, who arguably hold more sway than their civilian governments—as emblematic of this problem.
“President Trump is enamoured with generals… The issue becomes: is Trump engaging in private threats while offering public flattery?” Rubin asked, suggesting that such backchannel diplomacy could have destabilizing effects without accountability.
Rubin also pointed out the deeper problem: Pakistan’s increasing alignment with China.
He described the country as no longer acting independently, but as a proxy for Beijing’s energy and trade ambitions, particularly its goal of ensuring uninterrupted oil flows from the Persian Gulf.
This triangular axis—**Washington’s expansionist pressure, Beijing’s strategic hedging, and Islamabad’s willingness to play both sides—**is setting a precedent.
If smaller and developing countries learn that geopolitical manipulation and military posturing yield results, they are more likely to replicate this behavior.
The result, Rubin warned, is a world driven by opportunism and brinkmanship rather than shared values or peaceful cooperation.
“The United States’ short-term alliances and double standards are pushing other nations to act the same way,” said Rubin.
“Pakistan, for example, continues to sponsor terrorism, thinking it can exploit global divisions for its gain. But eventually, it will pay the price. The internal chaos in Pakistan is already proof.”
Rubin emphasized that India, in particular, must avoid relying on fleeting assurances from leaders like Trump. India alone is responsible for its national security. It must base its decisions on strategic reality, not on promises made by transient leaders or insincere partners,” he said.
He cautioned that while Trump may like to position himself as a power broker, the true levers of U.S. policy lie with Congress, where bipartisan support for India remains strong, nd tolerance for Pakistan’s duplicity is wearing thin.
Drawing a comparison with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Rubin said India should learn to assert its interests independently of Washington.
“Sometimes, it is important for India to ignore what Washington says, much like Netanyahu did when he prioritized Israel’s security over Trump’s wishes,” he noted.
Rubin’s remarks reflect a growing unease among experts that American-style expansionism and economic coercion—exemplified through sanctions, trade wars, and selective alliances—are undermining global norms.
By rewarding short-term strategic advantage over principled diplomacy, the U.S. risks inspiring a new generation of global players who abandon cooperation in favor of confrontation.
When Expansion Becomes Imitation: A Dangerous Global Spiral
What we are witnessing is not just a power struggle between nations, but a crisis of values in international relations. If global powers, led by the U.S., continue to treat diplomacy as a transactional affair and military posturing as legitimate negotiation, they inadvertently permit other countries to do the same.
China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Turkey’s ambitions in the Eastern Mediterranean, and Iran’s regional militancy—all reflect a world where aggression is normalized and international cooperation is eroding.
As the most powerful nation in the world, the United States sets the tone for what is acceptable in the global arena. If that tone prioritizes expansion, trade retaliation, and diplomatic ambiguity, then others will inevitably follow suit—and with far fewer checks and balances.
Such a world will not be built on progress but on paranoia and rivalry. Every nation arming for protection; every negotiation laced with mistrust; every generation raised amid conflict.
The cost is incalculable—not just in lives lost but in opportunities squandered for education, healthcare, technological advancement, and environmental sustainability.
The choice facing world leaders today is stark: continue down this path of zero-sum confrontation, or commit to a new framework rooted in mutual respect, shared responsibility, and sustainable peace.
If expansionism continues to be the guiding principle of foreign policy—whether American, Chinese, Russian, or otherwise—the global community will find itself trapped in an endless cycle of reaction and retaliation.
Only a return to principled diplomacy, transparency, and multilateral engagement can break that cycle and pave the way for a future defined not by dominance, but by dignity and development.