The Case for Pragmatic Nationalism Over Isolationism
Why the U.S. Must Engage Strategically, Not Withdraw
In an increasingly unstable world, the United States cannot afford to adopt a policy of isolationism. While some argue that withdrawing from global affairs would save resources and prevent unnecessary conflicts, the reality is that such a strategy would embolden adversaries, destabilize key regions, and put American national security at serious risk. Instead, the U.S. must adopt a foreign policy of Pragmatic Nationalism—one that prioritizes maintaining strong relations with allies, avoids subsidizing hostile nations, and ensures that any foreign intervention serves direct U.S. interests or those of our closest partners.
The Naïve Belief That Wars Would End
Some believe that if the United States withdraws from the world, wars would suddenly stop. This is a naïve and dangerous assumption. Wars have been a part of the human condition since the beginning of time. The United States did not create war; conflict has existed since the dawn of civilization. If America retreats from the global stage, wars will not cease—they will simply shift to our doorstep. The enemies we ignore abroad will eventually bring the fight to our shores, and by then, we will have lost the strategic advantage. America will not be left alone; it will be left vulnerable.
The Dangers of Isolationism and Middle East Destabilization
Isolationism, if implemented, would allow for the rapid deterioration of the Middle East. Without U.S. involvement, Iran would have a free hand to expand its influence and aggressively pursue nuclear weapons, which would trigger an arms race in the region. Iran ultimately wants nuclear weapons to tip missiles capable of striking American cities. The regime in Tehran sees nuclear capability as a means of deterring the U.S. while expanding its influence unchecked. The regime in Tehran sees nuclear capability as a means of deterring the U.S. while expanding its influence unchecked. If Iran successfully acquires nuclear weapons, it would not only destabilize the Middle East but also pose a direct existential threat to the American homeland. The idea that the U.S. can ignore Iran’s ambitions and remain safe is a dangerous delusion.
This power shift would not only weaken American influence but also empower authoritarian regimes that oppose Western values. Turkey, seeing an opportunity, could pursue expansionist ambitions, further increasing instability and heightening tensions between rival factions. Wars would inevitably break out across the region, leading to global economic repercussions, increased terror networks, and the eventual spillover of violence into the United States itself.
Backing Israel: A Strategic Necessity
Israel serves as a proxy army for the United States, allowing the United States to strike its adversaries through indirect means. Israel conducts military operations that the U.S. cannot engage in directly, providing Washington with plausible deniability while still advancing strategic objectives. By backing Israel, the United States can exert power in the region without direct involvement, leveraging Israel’s military strength to neutralize threats posed by Iran, terrorist organizations, and other hostile actors.
Economic Consequences and Oil Prices
One of the most immediate effects of a destabilized Middle East would be a sharp increase in oil prices. The U.S. and its allies depend on a stable energy market, and any major conflict in the region could send crude prices soaring. This would not only impact American consumers at the pump but also drive up the costs of goods, manufacturing, and transportation. An unstable oil market could trigger a global recession, making life more difficult for American families while benefiting adversarial economies like Russia, which thrives on high oil prices.
Higher oil prices also translate to weakened economic competitiveness for U.S. businesses. Without stable energy sources, the cost of production skyrockets, leading to mass layoffs, inflation, and declining economic growth, putting every American’s financial security at risk.
The Rise of Terrorism and Direct Threats to America
Without U.S. presence in the Middle East, terrorist organizations would have the freedom to regroup and expand their operations. Countries that once relied on U.S. intelligence and military assistance to suppress these groups would be overwhelmed, allowing radical Islamist factions to take over entire regions. This would create new safe havens for extremists to train and plan attacks against the West.
With no force actively countering terrorism in the Middle East, the threat to American citizens would increase exponentially. Terrorist networks would be free to export violence directly to the U.S., leading to mass casualties and further undermining national security. Isolationism would effectively invite these dangers to our doorstep. Without proactive engagement, America would become a primary target, and its citizens would pay the price in blood.
China’s Growing Ambitions and Global Power Shift
A withdrawal from the Middle East would not only embolden Iran and Russia but also China. If the U.S. allows its allies to collapse in the Middle East and does the same in the Asia-Pacific, it would send a signal of weakness. China would take advantage of this perceived American retreat by expanding its influence, threatening U.S. allies like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea.
Beijing would become the dominant superpower, exerting control over global trade, the South China Sea, and critical supply chains. The U.S. economy would suffer as China dictates global trade norms and technology standards, making America increasingly dependent on an adversary.
The American Bullseye
Once American global influence is diminished, every American citizen—at home and abroad—becomes a target. Adversaries would no longer fear U.S. retaliation, making terrorist attacks and direct military conflicts more likely. The world’s worst regimes would see America as weak and fractured, and they would exploit that weakness to destroy American interests. Isolationism does not create peace; it creates a vacuum that enemies are eager to fill, and it would put a bullseye on the back of every American citizen.
A More Pragmatic Approach: Strategic Engagement and Economic Returns
The alternative to isolationism is a Pragmatic Nationalist foreign policy—one that ensures the U.S. only intervenes when it benefits our direct interests or those of our allies. This policy requires maintaining strong alliances, deterring adversaries, and ensuring that any war the U.S. is forced to fight results in economic returns.
If America is drawn into conflict, it should no longer bear the costs alone. The resources of enemy nations should be seized as reparations to pay for U.S. military efforts. No more spending trillions rebuilding nations that attacked us—our resources should go to American veterans, their families, and rebuilding American infrastructure instead. America’s military might should serve the interests of its people, not the financial stability of foreign adversaries.
Conclusion: Strength Through Engagement, Not Isolation
The world is not a safe place, and retreating into isolationism would only make it more dangerous. A foreign policy of Pragmatic Nationalism ensures that the U.S. engages strategically, not recklessly. By maintaining alliances, preventing the rise of hostile powers, and securing economic benefits from any necessary conflicts, America can remain the dominant global force and safeguard its citizens.
Isolationism is a fantasy that leads to chaos. A strong, engaged America is the only way to ensure global stability and national security. Anything less is surrendering the future of the nation and putting every American in direct danger.
The Case for Pragmatic Nationalism Over Isolationism
Why the U.S. Must Engage Strategically, Not Withdraw
In an increasingly unstable world, the United States cannot afford to adopt a policy of isolationism. While some argue that withdrawing from global affairs would save resources and prevent unnecessary conflicts, the reality is that such a strategy would embolden adversaries, destabilize key regions, and put American national security at serious risk. Instead, the U.S. must adopt a foreign policy of Pragmatic Nationalism—one that prioritizes maintaining strong relations with allies, avoids subsidizing hostile nations, and ensures that any foreign intervention serves direct U.S. interests or those of our closest partners.
The Naïve Belief That Wars Would End
Some believe that if the United States withdraws from the world, wars would suddenly stop. This is a naïve and dangerous assumption. Wars have been a part of the human condition since the beginning of time. The United States did not create war; conflict has existed since the dawn of civilization. If America retreats from the global stage, wars will not cease—they will simply shift to our doorstep. The enemies we ignore abroad will eventually bring the fight to our shores, and by then, we will have lost the strategic advantage. America will not be left alone; it will be left vulnerable.
The Dangers of Isolationism and Middle East Destabilization
Isolationism, if implemented, would allow for the rapid deterioration of the Middle East. Without U.S. involvement, Iran would have a free hand to expand its influence and aggressively pursue nuclear weapons, which would trigger an arms race in the region. Iran ultimately wants nuclear weapons to tip missiles capable of striking American cities. The regime in Tehran sees nuclear capability as a means of deterring the U.S. while expanding its influence unchecked. The regime in Tehran sees nuclear capability as a means of deterring the U.S. while expanding its influence unchecked. If Iran successfully acquires nuclear weapons, it would not only destabilize the Middle East but also pose a direct existential threat to the American homeland. The idea that the U.S. can ignore Iran’s ambitions and remain safe is a dangerous delusion.
This power shift would not only weaken American influence but also empower authoritarian regimes that oppose Western values. Turkey, seeing an opportunity, could pursue expansionist ambitions, further increasing instability and heightening tensions between rival factions. Wars would inevitably break out across the region, leading to global economic repercussions, increased terror networks, and the eventual spillover of violence into the United States itself.
Backing Israel: A Strategic Necessity
Israel serves as a proxy army for the United States, allowing the United States to strike its adversaries through indirect means. Israel conducts military operations that the U.S. cannot engage in directly, providing Washington with plausible deniability while still advancing strategic objectives. By backing Israel, the United States can exert power in the region without direct involvement, leveraging Israel’s military strength to neutralize threats posed by Iran, terrorist organizations, and other hostile actors.
Economic Consequences and Oil Prices
One of the most immediate effects of a destabilized Middle East would be a sharp increase in oil prices. The U.S. and its allies depend on a stable energy market, and any major conflict in the region could send crude prices soaring. This would not only impact American consumers at the pump but also drive up the costs of goods, manufacturing, and transportation. An unstable oil market could trigger a global recession, making life more difficult for American families while benefiting adversarial economies like Russia, which thrives on high oil prices.
Higher oil prices also translate to weakened economic competitiveness for U.S. businesses. Without stable energy sources, the cost of production skyrockets, leading to mass layoffs, inflation, and declining economic growth, putting every American’s financial security at risk.
The Rise of Terrorism and Direct Threats to America
Without U.S. presence in the Middle East, terrorist organizations would have the freedom to regroup and expand their operations. Countries that once relied on U.S. intelligence and military assistance to suppress these groups would be overwhelmed, allowing radical Islamist factions to take over entire regions. This would create new safe havens for extremists to train and plan attacks against the West.
With no force actively countering terrorism in the Middle East, the threat to American citizens would increase exponentially. Terrorist networks would be free to export violence directly to the U.S., leading to mass casualties and further undermining national security. Isolationism would effectively invite these dangers to our doorstep. Without proactive engagement, America would become a primary target, and its citizens would pay the price in blood.
China’s Growing Ambitions and Global Power Shift
A withdrawal from the Middle East would not only embolden Iran and Russia but also China. If the U.S. allows its allies to collapse in the Middle East and does the same in the Asia-Pacific, it would send a signal of weakness. China would take advantage of this perceived American retreat by expanding its influence, threatening U.S. allies like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea.
Beijing would become the dominant superpower, exerting control over global trade, the South China Sea, and critical supply chains. The U.S. economy would suffer as China dictates global trade norms and technology standards, making America increasingly dependent on an adversary.
The American Bullseye
Once American global influence is diminished, every American citizen—at home and abroad—becomes a target. Adversaries would no longer fear U.S. retaliation, making terrorist attacks and direct military conflicts more likely. The world’s worst regimes would see America as weak and fractured, and they would exploit that weakness to destroy American interests. Isolationism does not create peace; it creates a vacuum that enemies are eager to fill, and it would put a bullseye on the back of every American citizen.
A More Pragmatic Approach: Strategic Engagement and Economic Returns
The alternative to isolationism is a Pragmatic Nationalist foreign policy—one that ensures the U.S. only intervenes when it benefits our direct interests or those of our allies. This policy requires maintaining strong alliances, deterring adversaries, and ensuring that any war the U.S. is forced to fight results in economic returns.
If America is drawn into conflict, it should no longer bear the costs alone. The resources of enemy nations should be seized as reparations to pay for U.S. military efforts. No more spending trillions rebuilding nations that attacked us—our resources should go to American veterans, their families, and rebuilding American infrastructure instead. America’s military might should serve the interests of its people, not the financial stability of foreign adversaries.
Conclusion: Strength Through Engagement, Not Isolation
The world is not a safe place, and retreating into isolationism would only make it more dangerous. A foreign policy of Pragmatic Nationalism ensures that the U.S. engages strategically, not recklessly. By maintaining alliances, preventing the rise of hostile powers, and securing economic benefits from any necessary conflicts, America can remain the dominant global force and safeguard its citizens.
Isolationism is a fantasy that leads to chaos. A strong, engaged America is the only way to ensure global stability and national security. Anything less is surrendering the future of the nation and putting every American in direct danger.