For three decades following the Cold War, the United States remained unmatched in terms of its political, economic, and military dominance. Faced with little international opposition, the United States was able to expand its influence globally and develop an international world order centered on American interests.
This period allowed for a crude foreign policy, setting terms, expecting compliance, and eradicating opposition.
That long stretch of dominance also shaped American expectations. Many citizens came to view the U.S. as the dominant power on the world stage, overlooking the fact that this is an unusual occurrence in the history of the world.
Today’s world forces the U.S. to change its approach as globalization, increased economic competition, and geopolitical tensions have undermined U.S. hegemony internationally.
“In the 30 years since the USSR collapsed, the U.S. has mostly been in the driver’s seat,” social science instructor Kevin Guay said. “The more recent emergence of a ‘multipolar’ world shifts the global hierarchy.”
Instead of one dominant power, you’ve got several major players, including China, the EU, maybe India, and Russia to some extent.
“For the U.S., that essentially means less freedom to call the shots. It’ll ultimately have to negotiate much more and sometimes accept outcomes it can’t fully control,” Guay said.
For American citizens raised in that unipolar era, this shift is difficult to accept. The idea that the U.S. must bargain as one power among many contradicts decades of being told that America sets the rules.
The international sphere constantly evolves and changes; tariffs, embargoes, and military interventions have not disappeared, but have evolved with severe costs at home and abroad.
“Global interconnection definitely raises the stakes of foreign policy choices,” senior Robie Polos said. “Global economies have become so intertwined and dependent on access to international markets that any change in foreign policy will impact the domestic economy.”
Embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs disrupt supply lines, lead to trade wars, and harm the economies of both countries involved. An economically stronger country does not feel the effects nearly as much as a smaller country, but as countries begin to have the tools to stand up to the U.S., these tactics are no longer as successful.
“Embargoes are often used for more geopolitical [agendas, rather] than strictly economic goals.
Embargoes raise prices by limiting access to goods to or from the embargoed country,” Robie Polos said. “Military interventions are the most extreme and controversial method America [uses to] spread its agenda. Military interventions are often unsuccessful, such as the Vietnam War and Afghanistan. Funding an intervention requires a lot of taxpayer money and often worsens foreign relations with countries that view America as aggressive and militaristic.”
History shows two distinct paths. Developing and building local industry while, creating shared stakes that lead to durable and lasting alliances versus, or coercing countries through military and economic means that commonly lead to instability and anti-West resentment.
“The U.S. implemented a policy known as ‘dollar diplomacy’ in the early 1900s, which invested a significant amount of money into Latin American governments to ensure southern nations would remain aligned with U.S. interests,” Guay said. “Unfortunately, political and economic influence through loans and investments didn’t always go as planned, and the U.S. ultimately did use force in places like Nicaragua.”
Historically, the Marshall Plan, which provided aid to post-World War II Europe, exemplifies the alternative path: with large-scale investment, framed as a partnership, which helped rebuild infrastructure and restore industry, and create interdependent markets that anchored Western Europe to the United States.
“The Marshall Plan, despite its intent to limit Soviet power and promote [anti-communism], was a genuine collaboration between nations,” Guay said.
“There’s NATO, the UN, and NAFTA and there have been various climate compacts, such as the Paris Accords. All of these were designed for mutual benefit through collaborative efforts.”
The difference between collaborative and coercive foreign policy is based on the belief that influence in a multipolar world must be earned through good faith.
In this context, good faith means structuring deals so partners see visible economic gains, investing in local capacity and recognizing local sovereignty rather than extracting resources and exploiting the present power imbalance between America and a weaker nation.
Three practical shifts in U.S. Foreign Policy follow logically from this principle: First, trade and investment must deliver mutually beneficial benefits: factories, technology transfer, workforce training, and jointly owned infrastructure.
Second, economic tools, such as tariffs, sanctions, and embargoes, should be used sparingly to prevent international tension.
Third, U.S. strategy must prioritize coalition-building over unilateral action.
In the coming century, having strong coalitions will be a decisive factor in maintaining influence as more international actors rise to compete with the U.S.
In either path, navigating the multipolar era is not risk-free. Persisting with coercion risks isolation: long-term allies may drift away and rivals may form counter-coalitions; in fact, these dynamics are already happening.
Conversely, acting in good faith is risky, as poorly designed investments can succumb to corruption, and concessions on the world stage could be politically costly at home.
Ultimately, the most significant adjustment will be domestic: Americans must recognize that permanent dominance is not guaranteed, and if we do not adapt to an increasingly polarized world, we may feel the consequences.
The choice facing policymakers is straightforward. One path is the comfort of old habits: blunt tools that buy short-term compliance and long-term resentment, pushing developing countries into the arms of other powers.
The other requires political will and patience to establish lasting partnerships.
The only truly sustainable currency of power in a connected, multipolar world is symbiotic relationships built on good faith.
