The Recurring Betrayal: When US Rhetoric Fails Revolutions
For decades, a disturbing pattern has emerged in US foreign policy: the encouragement of uprisings in adversarial nations, followed by a conspicuous lack of support when those movements face brutal repression. From Iraq in 1991 to Hungary in 1956, and more recently Syria and Iran, the US has repeatedly offered rhetorical support to those seeking freedom, only to abandon them when the moment demands real commitment. This isn’t simply a series of miscalculations; it’s a deeply ingrained structural issue with potentially devastating consequences.
A History of Empty Promises
The roots of this pattern stretch back to the Cold War. The 1956 Hungarian Revolution, fueled in part by broadcasts from Radio Free Europe that hinted at Western intervention, ended in a bloody Soviet crackdown. The US, preoccupied with the Suez Crisis, stood by. Similarly, in 1972, the Nixon administration secretly armed Iraqi Kurds to destabilize the Ba’athist regime, but withdrew support when the Shah of Iran reached a rapprochement with Baghdad, leaving the Kurds vulnerable to retaliation. As documented by the Pike Committee, the intention wasn’t Kurdish liberation, but rather weakening a regional adversary.
More recently, the withdrawal of US forces from Syria in 2019, effectively abandoning Kurdish allies who had fought alongside American troops against ISIS, underscored this pattern. The images of Kurdish civilians throwing rotten vegetables at departing US convoys became a potent symbol of American unreliability. This isn’t isolated; a 2023 report by the Council on Foreign Relations highlighted a consistent trend of the US prioritizing short-term strategic gains over long-term commitments to democratic movements.
The Two Tracks of US Foreign Policy
The core of the problem lies in a fundamental disconnect within US foreign policy. There’s a rhetorical track – the pronouncements about freedom, self-determination, and human rights – designed for domestic consumption and to project a positive image abroad. Then there’s the strategic track, driven by national interests, risk assessment, and the often-brutal realities of geopolitics. These tracks rarely align.
Encouraging dissent is relatively cheap and carries minimal risk. It disrupts adversaries and allows US politicians to appear morally upright. But providing genuine support – military aid, diplomatic pressure, or even a credible threat of intervention – is costly and potentially escalatory. This creates a perverse incentive to talk a good game while avoiding meaningful action. As Kissinger famously put it, “Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.”
Trump and the Erosion of the Façade
Donald Trump’s approach, while often chaotic and unpredictable, represents a potential shift in this dynamic. His rhetoric, unburdened by traditional diplomatic niceties, often mirrors his strategic intentions. His recent pronouncements regarding Iran, promising support to protesters while simultaneously signaling a willingness to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, illustrate this.
However, this doesn’t necessarily make him more trustworthy. It suggests the strategic track may be increasingly erratic, driven by impulse rather than calculated assessment. The danger isn’t just abandonment, but abandonment coupled with unpredictable escalation. A recent analysis by the Brookings Institution suggests that Trump’s foreign policy decisions are more likely to be driven by personal relationships and transactional considerations than by long-term strategic goals.
The Implications for Iran and Beyond
The current situation in Iran is a stark reminder of this historical pattern. While Trump’s strong rhetoric initially emboldened protesters, the lack of concrete support raises familiar concerns. The Iranian regime has brutally suppressed the protests, and the US response has been largely limited to sanctions and condemnation.
This pattern extends beyond the Middle East. In Ukraine, while the US has provided significant aid, the initial hesitancy to commit to robust military assistance mirrored the historical reluctance to fully back movements challenging powerful adversaries. The ongoing debate over the level and type of support for Ukraine highlights the enduring tension between rhetorical commitments and strategic realities.
What Can Be Done?
Breaking this cycle requires a fundamental shift in US foreign policy. Policymakers must be more honest about the limits of American power and the constraints on intervention. Rhetoric must be aligned with realistic capabilities. And, crucially, the US must prioritize building long-term relationships based on mutual trust, rather than treating movements for freedom as disposable assets in a geopolitical game.
Pro Tip: When evaluating US foreign policy statements, always look beyond the rhetoric and consider the underlying strategic interests at play.
FAQ: US Foreign Policy and Revolutions
- Why does the US often encourage uprisings but then fail to support them? The US often prioritizes its own strategic interests over the success of democratic movements, leading to a gap between rhetoric and action.
- Is this pattern unique to the US? While the US is a prominent example, other major powers have also been accused of similar behavior, prioritizing their own interests over the aspirations of those seeking change.
- What can activists and movements do to avoid being betrayed by the US? Maintain realistic expectations, diversify sources of support, and focus on building sustainable movements independent of external actors.
- Will this pattern ever change? A fundamental shift in US foreign policy thinking is required, prioritizing long-term relationships and aligning rhetoric with realistic capabilities.
Did you know? The term “blowback,” referring to the unintended consequences of covert operations, was first coined by the CIA to describe the negative repercussions of interventions in the Middle East.
Explore our other articles on US Foreign Policy and Geopolitical Strategy to deepen your understanding of these complex issues.
What are your thoughts on the US role in supporting or not supporting revolutions abroad? Share your perspective in the comments below!
