The passing of Jimmy Carter, the 39th President of the United States, comes at a time when the world is waiting for Donald Trump’s return for a second term. This moment invites reflection on the interventionist policy of the U.S.— A policy entangled in a paradox of advocating for human rights while interfering in the internal sovereignty of nations. This policy has become a cornerstone of U.S. foreign affairs, often cloaked in the rhetoric of democracy and human rights but yielding unintended and destabilizing consequences for global and regional peace. In understanding this legacy of the US presidents there is a spectrum of approaches, from Trump’s populist isolationist policies to the grand interventionist strategies of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, as well as Carter’s human rights-focused policies, yet the underlying result has remained consistent: a less secure world. Carter’s legacy, for instance, includes arming Afghan militants against the Soviet Union, which later paved the way for the rise of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and the overthrow of Iran’s Shah, which replaced a reliable ally with a regime fundamentally opposed to U.S. interests.
The duality of American interventionism in its foreign policy has become a principle, where the simultaneous advocacy for sovereignty, freedom, and human rights has led to regional destabilization, promoting authoritarianism, armed movements, and prolonged crises. This contradiction reveals a reality: U.S. foreign policy, regardless of its stated goals, prioritizes strategic dominance over global transformation and development. Carter’s presidency revealed that American idealism often succumbs to geopolitical realities, ultimately paving the way for neoconservative dominance in global order—a trajectory that extends to Trump.
Four decades after Carter’s presidency, Trump’s “America First” doctrine appears to signal a departure from global interventionism. However, in practice, it has merely rebranded interventionism. Trump’s first term featured unprecedented unilateral sanctions against Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and Russia. Far from promoting democracy, these measures empowered authoritarian regimes and impoverished the populations of targeted nations.
Trump’s administration also engaged in controversial actions such as selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, supporting its intervention in Yemen, abandoning the Iran nuclear deal, and undermining pro-West factions in the Iranian government. Additionally, his administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and subsequent empowerment of the Taliban underscored the contradictions in his policies.
The broader picture reveals that the U.S. relies heavily on imposing its will globally, often sidelining even its closest allies, including European nations. From Carter to Trump, the core strategy has remained unchanged—varied tactics aimed at maintaining American global dominance at any cost. Both Carter and Trump share a legacy of rejecting rival powers, even allies, and opposing parallel structures, such as China’s self-reliant development initiatives that pose no direct challenge to the U.S.
Trump’s inheritance of this legacy involves strategies designed to fracture regional alliances, fuel divisions between nations, and undermine independent governance. His administration’s handling of issues like the Iran nuclear deal withdrawal and the chaotic exit from Afghanistan echoes similar patterns seen in Carter’s era, albeit in different forms.
Perhaps it is time for the U.S. to embrace a more sustainable approach: investing in layered strategic partnerships founded on trust, stability, and progress rather than short-term domination. In today’s interconnected world, even as the U.S. retains a significant role in global order, its leadership must be redefined.
If Trump genuinely seeks to distinguish his presidency and secure a lasting legacy, he must recognize that global leadership extends beyond the use of force. It requires the application of logic, responsibility, and adherence to international law through multilateral cooperation. Without this shift, even a nation with a near trillion-dollar defense budget will struggle to achieve lasting security.
