Whose Friend Is The US Anyway?

NDTV

7 hours ago

"Ingratitude, thou marble-hearted fiend, more hideous when thou show'st thee in a child than the sea-monster!"
Replace child with friend, and Shakespeare's Lear could very well be one of the allies of the US who are now lamenting reposing trust in it. As of 2025, many countries, big and small, view the US less as a protector and more like an unreliable patron - slow to act if at all, unsure of its commitments, often causing embarrassment, and vulnerable to distraction. The latest is Pakistan. In less than two days of the Pakistan government's nomination of POTUS Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, the US military carried out air attacks on Iran.
The Cost Of Being America's Friend
Since the end of the Second World War, America's allies have placed extraordinary faith in the credibility of US security guarantees. Rooted in the assumptions of American military supremacy and political will, this extended deterrent has long been the psychological and strategic foundation for Washington's allies.
However, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War and the latest Iran-Israel conflict have dramatically undercut this foundational trust. In today's multipolar world, where US credibility is increasingly in question, the cost of American alignment has never been higher. After Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, West Asian oil exporters have raised crude prices. Most of them are Washington's allies, but they haven't been spared the menacing "We are watching you" message from Trump.
In the context of the Russia-Ukraine War, Washington's strategy of incremental support and avoidance of direct confrontation has sent mixed signals to other allies. Like a toxic partner, the US has been "gaslighting" Ukraine for not being on board with its phantasmagoria of peace talks. The world recently witnessed the live bullying of the Ukrainian president at the White House. While it has offered Ukraine significant material assistance, Washington has made clear that Ukraine is not worth a full-scale war with Russia.
Fear Of Abandonment
Trump has been blaming the world for sucking the US dry and has pulled out of several multilateral organisations to make America great again. As Robert Rothstein observed, when great powers turn inward - as 19th-century Britain occasionally did - the consequence is often "the destruction of one or more small powers". In 2025, this warning feels prophetic. With US strategic attention stretched thin across Europe, the Middle East, and the Indo-Pacific, many countries are confronting the possibility of abandonment as Trump is keen on making even the allies pay for the cost of 'Making America Great Again'.
However, Iran's retaliatory bombing of the US military bases in Qatar at the time of writing this essay highlights the ultimate peril of being an American ally in 2025: the US may no longer be willing to fight for you, but your enemies are ready to make you pay for standing by Washington. Unless, obviously, you are Israel.
The case of Israel is quite curious; it may have many problems, but abandonment is not one of them. Israel has always relied on the belief that the United States would be both willing and able to retaliate to protect it. The perception of this willingness has, in many ways, been more important than its actual use. With the strikes on Iran, the belief has been cemented. Israel's belligerence in the region and its disproportionate deep strike strategy against its neighbours can be seen as a result of the unquestioning American backing. But does Israel really benefit from the continuing conflict with neighbours and Iran on one hand and the Palestinians on the other? At this moment in history, Israel is a completely militarised state where democracy has taken an indefinite back seat.
A Shaky Ally
Scholars like Barry Posen have argued that US military involvement has often produced the opposite of its intended effect - destabilising regimes, provoking insurgencies, and fostering anti-American extremism. Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, US interventions in independent countries like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc., failed to create durable democracies, instead fuelling regional chaos and humanitarian disasters.
In the early modern period, vulnerable polities like Burgundy and the Swiss cantons invested in small but potent militaries, acting on the assumption that strong self-defence capabilities could deter predatory neighbours. Belgium's pre-WWI fortification network and Poland's 1930s war-fighting doctrine similarly reflected a sober calculation: in the absence of ironclad guarantees, military readiness and the threat of disproportionate cost could buy sovereignty. Today's times are not much different insofar as the dependence on a faraway ally remains shaky.
The lesson for India is clear: in a world marked by rising great-power rivalries and American ambivalence, strategic self-reliance is no longer a luxury - it is a necessity. However, it's high time that words are translated into serious and competent action. Along with working on economic fortitude, New Delhi's 'Neighbourhood-first' stance ought to be strengthened by leaning on diplomacy, multilateralism, and burden-sharing as superior long-term strategies.