Naked and
Wild Imperialism: MAGA as a Doctrine of “Peace by Force”
Prof. Dr. Firuz Demir Yaşamış
Abstract
This study examines MAGA-era U.S. foreign policy
through the conceptual lens of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI), framing it as
a doctrine of “peace by force.” The analysis demonstrates that this approach
represents both continuity and rupture in American international strategy,
combining historical coercive practices with audacious, opportunistic, and
ideologically performative methods. Using concrete examples from military,
economic, and diplomatic domains, the study shows how NWI operationalizes coercion
without formal occupation, integrates domestic political imperatives, and
redefines international norms. MAGA-era strategies are characterized by
transactional flexibility, rhetorical audacity, and domestic electoral
reinforcement, producing conditional stability, challenging sovereignty
principles, and reshaping alliance dynamics. This research contributes a novel
theoretical framework to international relations, providing insight into the
evolving logic of contemporary U.S. power projection and its implications for
global stability and normative order.
Keywords: Naked and
Wild Imperialism, MAGA-era foreign policy, peace by force, U.S. global
strategy, coercion, performative statecraft, international norms, alliances
Özet
Bu çalışma,
MAGA dönemi ABD dış politikasını Çıplak ve Vahşi Emperyalizm (ÇVE) kavramsal
çerçevesi üzerinden inceleyerek, bunu “zorlayıcı barış” doktrini olarak
çerçevelendirmektedir. Çözümleme, bu yaklaşımın Amerikan uluslararası
stratejisinde hem sürekliliği hem de kopuşu temsil ettiğini, tarihsel zorlayıcı
uygulamaları cüretkar, fırsatçı ve ideolojik olarak performatif yöntemlerle
birleştirdiğini göstermektedir. Çalışmada askeri, ekonomik ve diplomatik
alanlardan somut örnekler kullanılarak, ÇVE’nin fiziksel işgal olmaksızın
zorlama mekanizmalarını nasıl işlettiği, iç politik zorunlulukları nasıl bütünleştirdiği
ve uluslararası normları nasıl yeniden tanımladığı ortaya konmaktadır. MAGA
dönemi stratejileri, işlemsel esneklik, retorik cüretkarlığı ve iç seçim siyasalarıyla
pekiştirme özellikleri ile özellik kazanmakta, bu durum koşullu bir kararlılık
yaratmakta, egemenlik ilkelerini sorgulamakta ve ittifak dinamiklerini yeniden
şekillendirmektedir. Bu araştırma, uluslararası ilişkiler yazınına yeni bir kuramsal
çerçeve sunarak, çağdaş ABD güç projeksiyonunun evrilen mantığını ve bunun
küresel kararlılık ile normatif düzen üzerindeki etkilerini açıklamaktadır.
Anahtar
Kelimeler: Çıplak ve
Vahşi Emperyalizm, MAGA dönemi dış politikası, zorlayıcı barış, ABD küresel
stratejisi, zorlama, performatif devlet yönetimi, uluslararası normlar,
ittifaklar
INTRODUCTION
In an era marked by the apparent retreat of
multilateralism and the resurgence of nationalist assertiveness, the phrase
“peace by force” encapsulates a starkly consequential doctrine in U.S. foreign
policy under the MAGA paradigm. What was once relegated to the rhetoric of
hardline hawks has become an operational principle, a worldview in which
military might, coercive diplomacy, and transactional alliances are wielded not
as instruments of deterrence alone, but as the primary guarantors of global
order.
This paper argues that MAGA-era politics represents a
form of naked and wild imperialism which is a departure from traditional
liberal internationalist norms toward a doctrine that unapologetically
prioritizes national interests through coercive power. Drawing on historical
analogues, from Roosevelt’s “speak softly, but carry a big stick” to Cold War
interventions, I explore how this doctrine reframes peace as the absence of
resistance rather than the presence of justice.
Central to this analysis is the conceptual lens of
“peace by force”: the idea that order and stability are maintained not through
negotiation or international consensus, but by asserting dominance over both
allies and adversaries. The paper examines the doctrinal coherence of this
approach, its manifestations in policy choices (from troop deployments to trade
wars) and its implications for global stability.
In situating MAGA’s foreign policy within this
framework, the paper also addresses the domestic undercurrents that enable such
strategies: the interplay between populist rhetoric, the perception of external
threats, and the political economy of electoral incentives. The result is a
hybrid form of imperialism (wild in its opportunism, naked in its directness) those
challenges conventional understandings of American statecraft in the 21st
century.
By analyzing this doctrine through both theoretical
and empirical lenses, the paper aims to illuminate how “peace by force” shapes
contemporary international relations, influences U.S. interactions with allies
and rivals, and redefines the contours of American power projection in the
world.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
Aim
This research aims to analyze the MAGA-era foreign
policy as a coherent doctrine of “peace by force”, exploring its ideological
foundations, strategic applications, and implications for global power
dynamics. The study seeks to situate this approach within the broader context
of American imperialism, highlighting its departures from traditional liberal
internationalist norms and its influence on contemporary international
relations.
Objectives
Conceptual
Clarification: To define and critically examine the notion of
“peace by force” and its historical precedents in U.S. foreign policy.
Doctrinal
Analysis: To investigate the ideological underpinnings of
MAGA-era foreign policy and how these reflect a shift toward coercive,
interest-driven imperialism.
Policy
Examination: To analyze concrete policy manifestations of
this doctrine, including military interventions, economic coercion, and
diplomatic strategies.
Comparative
Assessment: To compare MAGA’s approach with previous U.S.
foreign policy paradigms, highlighting continuities and ruptures.
Implications
and Consequences: To evaluate the impacts of “peace by
force” on global stability, alliances, and the international rules-based order.
Domestic-International
Nexus: To examine how domestic political incentives,
populist rhetoric, and electoral dynamics reinforce this doctrine.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Conceptual & Theoretical:
How can
MAGA-era foreign policy be conceptualized as a doctrine of “peace by force”?
What
historical precedents or ideological frameworks inform this approach?
Policy & Practice:
In what way
does this doctrine diverge from or continue previous U.S. foreign policy
paradigms?
Implications & Consequences:
What are the
implications of this approach for global stability, international norms, and
alliances?
How do
domestic political dynamics, including populist rhetoric and electoral
considerations, shape the adoption and sustainability of “peace by force” as a
policy doctrine?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study employs a qualitative, doctrinal, and
analytical approach to examine MAGA-era U.S. foreign policy as a form of naked
and wild imperialism. The methodology combines conceptual analysis, historical
comparison, and case-based examination to provide a comprehensive understanding
of the doctrine of “peace by force.”
Conceptual Analysis: The study
begins by defining the core concept of “peace by force” within the context of
international relations theory and American foreign policy. Key terms,
ideological foundations, and historical precedents (e.g., Roosevelt’s “big
stick” diplomacy, Cold War coercion) are critically analyzed to establish a
theoretical framework.
Doctrinal and Policy Analysis: MAGA-era
policies are examined through a detailed review of official statements,
executive orders, speeches, and legislative actions. Case studies include
military interventions, economic coercion (trade wars, sanctions), and
diplomatic maneuvers, illustrating the practical implementation of “peace by
force.”
Comparative Historical Approach: The
research compares MAGA-era practices with previous U.S. foreign policy
doctrines, identifying continuities and ruptures. This historical-comparative
lens helps contextualize the novelty and radicalism of the current approach.
Domestic-International Nexus: The
analysis incorporates the interplay between domestic political dynamics
(populist rhetoric, electoral incentives) and international strategy,
highlighting how internal factors shape foreign policy decisions.
Data Sources: Primary
sources: speeches, policy documents, official statements, executive orders,
congressional records.
Secondary sources: scholarly
articles, books, think-tank reports, and media analyses.
All sources are critically evaluated for credibility,
bias, and relevance.
The study uses a thematic content analysis to identify
recurring patterns, principles, and strategies within MAGA-era foreign policy. The
findings are interpreted through the lens of international relations theory,
particularly realist and neorealist perspectives, to situate “peace by force”
within broader global power dynamics.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This study situates MAGA-era foreign policy within a
nuanced theoretical framework that differentiates between classical realism,
traditional imperialism, and what is conceptualized here as Naked and Wild
Imperialism (NWI). (Lenin, 1939).
Rooted in the works of Thucydides, Machiavelli, and
Morgenthau, classical realism emphasizes state survival, the pursuit of
national interest, and power politics as the guiding principles of
international relations. Under realism, military force is a tool of deterrence
or balance, not an ideological end in itself. Peace is maintained through
equilibrium and strategic calculations, rather than explicit coercion for
dominance. MAGA-era policies, while realist in some rhetoric (emphasizing
“America First” and strategic advantage), transcend classical realism by
embedding coercion and domination as normative instruments, not just strategic
options. (Carr, 1939).
Traditional imperialism historically involves
territorial expansion, colonization, or direct political control over foreign
populations. Economic exploitation and cultural hegemony often accompany
territorial conquest. Traditional imperialism is largely structural and
material, driven by resource extraction, markets, or strategic geography. MAGA-era
foreign policy, by contrast, exhibits non-territorial imperialism: it relies on
coercive diplomacy, economic leverage, and military intimidation without formal
annexation. Thus, it is imperial in effect but not in classical form. (Hobson, 2012).
The concept of NWI, as articulated in this study,
captures the unique combination of coercive force, populist ideology, and
transactional diplomacy in MAGA-era policy. NWI is characterized by naked
assertiveness meaning unambiguous use of force or threat as a primary
instrument of international order and opportunistic flexibility meaning policies
are highly situational and transactional, prioritizing short-term gains over
long-term alliances or stability. (Mearsheimer, 2001). As for domestic political
entanglement the foreign policy is deeply intertwined with domestic electoral
incentives, media narratives, and populist legitimacy. For non-traditional
imperial reach, influence is projected through economic sanctions, trade wars,
and military posturing rather than territorial control. NWI is thus distinct
from classical realism and traditional imperialism, merging coercive pragmatism
with ideological performance and political expediency. (Gilpin,
1981)
ANALYSIS
Situating MAGA within NWI
To delineate the theoretical innovation of Naked and
Wild Imperialism (NWI), it is essential to contrast it with the two preceding
forms of imperialism that have historically shaped the exercise of global
power: classical imperialism and neo-imperialism. Each represents a distinct
phase in the evolution of coercive statecraft: shifting from territorial
domination to institutional dependency, and now to performative coercion.
MAGA-era foreign policy exemplifies NWI by
operationalizing “peace by force”: asserting dominance not for deterrence
alone, but to create compliance and transactional advantage. This framework
allows for an analytical lens that captures both the ideological audacity and
practical mechanisms of contemporary U.S. foreign policy, distinguishing it
from prior doctrines and illuminating its global implications. (Hamid, 2018).
|
Table 1: From Imperialism to Naked and Wild Imperialism: A Comparative Overview |
|||
|
Dimension |
Classical Imperialism |
Neo-Imperialism |
Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI) |
|
Primary Aim |
Territorial
expansion, resource extraction |
Global economic
dominance via dependency |
Performative
coercion and transactional control |
|
Mechanism of
Power |
Military conquest
and direct rule |
Economic
leverage, institutions (IMF, WB) |
Public threats,
proxy coercion, rhetorical normalization of force |
|
Ideological
Justification |
Civilizing
mission, nationalism |
Liberal
internationalism, democracy promotion |
National
greatness, populist exceptionalism |
|
Mode of Operation |
Colonies,
protectorates |
Trade regimes,
conditional aid, bases |
Short-term,
high-visibility coercive acts without occupation |
|
Relation to
Domestic Politics |
Elite-driven
expansionism |
Technocratic
globalism |
Populist
performance targeting domestic audiences |
|
Legitimacy
Narrative |
Empire as destiny |
Liberal order as
moral duty |
“Peace by force”
as patriotic realism |
Thus, NWI departs from earlier forms of imperialism by
discarding both the liberal and civilizing justifications that historically
accompanied coercion. It replaces them with a populist and performative logic
that merges domestic spectacle with global intimidation, reasserting imperial
behavior stripped of its normative disguise. NWI
diverges from its predecessors in both form and purpose. While classical
imperialism relied on physical occupation and neo-imperialism on economic or
institutional dependency, NWI employs rhetorical domination and performative
coercion as its principal instruments. It operates without the pretense of
moral universalism or liberal benevolence, instead drawing legitimacy from
domestic populist sentiment and national exceptionalism. In this sense, NWI
represents the re-barbarization of imperial logic—an unapologetic reversion to
raw coercive power, yet mediated through modern communication, media spectacle,
and populist political theater. The doctrine of “peace by force” encapsulates
this transformation: coercion becomes not only a foreign policy tool but also a
performative reaffirmation of national identity and will.
Justification for the Concept of Naked and Wild
Imperialism (NWI)
The concept of NWI is introduced to capture a mode of
state behavior that is distinct from both classical realism and traditional
imperialism. While classical realism emphasizes the pursuit of national
interest and power balance, and traditional imperialism focuses on territorial
conquest and structural domination, MAGA-era U.S. foreign policy demonstrates a
hybrid form of coercive, ideologically performative [1]
and opportunistically transactional imperialism. (Humire, 2024; Butler, 2021)
Economic Coercion as a Tool of Dominance: The
2018–2019 U.S.-China trade war exemplifies NWI’s logic. Tariffs were used not
merely as retaliatory measures but to extract concessions, project power, and
signal resolve, even at domestic economic cost. Unlike classical realism, which
treats economic leverage as a strategic instrument for long-term stability, NWI
weaponizes economic tools for immediate political and strategic gain.
Military Posturing Without Direct Occupation: MAGA-era
threats toward Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea demonstrate coercive force
without territorial conquest. Unlike traditional imperialism, which relies on
structural control or annexation, NWI emphasizes psychological dominance,
signaling, and transactional threat, achieving influence without formal
occupation. (Agnew, 2017)
Transactional Diplomacy and Opportunistic
Alliances: The renegotiation of NAFTA into USMCA, coupled with
pressure on NATO allies to increase contributions, illustrates the
transactional and opportunistic nature of NWI. Alliances are treated as tools
for immediate leverage, linked to domestic political legitimacy rather than
enduring international commitments.
Ideologically Performative Assertion of Power: MAGA
rhetoric emphasizing “peace through strength,” the unilateral withdrawal from
the Iran nuclear deal, and the unconditional support for Israel including
unprecedented military and technological aid to demonstrate normative power
projection. NWI captures this
performative and ideological aspect, where policy is both a signal to the world
and a domestic political performance.
Geopolitical Opportunism and Resource Extraction: Examples
such as the attempted purchase of Greenland and the focus on rare earth
elements in Ukraine showcase audacious opportunism. NWI projects influence
opportunistically, seeking material and strategic advantage without permanent
territorial occupation.
Extreme Coercion in Palestine: Policies
undermining the two-state solution, supporting displacement, enabling
atrocities, and envisioning Gaza as a commercialized resort area illustrate the
unapologetic coercion and normative reordering of territories and populations.
This approach reflects NWI’s willingness to reshape global spaces and
populations in line with ideological and strategic objectives.
Redefinition of International Norms
NWI operates beyond established rules of sovereignty,
multilateral negotiation, and human rights, emphasizing unilateral action and
dominance. By linking domestic populist narratives to global coercive
strategies, NWI exemplifies the fusion of ideological performance with raw
power projection. (Nye and Keohane,
1977).
MAGA-era foreign policy under NWI demonstrates that
contemporary U.S. power is naked in its assertiveness, wild in its opportunism,
and ideologically performative. It is coercive and transactional, projecting
influence without the structural or territorial trappings of classical
imperialism. NWI therefore fills a critical explanatory gap, offering a
conceptual lens that captures the methodology, ideology, and audacity of modern
American statecraft. (Waltz, 1979).
|
Table 2: Mapping MAGA-era Policies to NWI Characteristics |
||
|
NWI Characteristic |
Concrete Example |
Analytical Insight |
|
Naked
Assertiveness |
Threats of
military action against Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea |
Force and
intimidation are used directly to achieve compliance without territorial
conquest. |
|
Opportunistic
Flexibility |
Attempted
purchase of Greenland; focus on rare earth elements in Ukraine |
Influence and
resources are pursued opportunistically, not through permanent occupation. |
|
Transactional
Diplomacy |
NAFTA to USMCA
renegotiation; NATO funding pressure |
Alliances and
agreements treated as short-term tools to extract concessions. |
|
Ideologically
Performative Power |
Withdrawal from
the Iran nuclear deal; MAGA rhetoric “peace by strength”; unconditional
Israel support |
Policy serves
both strategic purposes and domestic/populist signaling; ideology and image
matter. |
|
Non-traditional
Imperial Reach |
Economic coercion
via tariffs in the U.S.–China trade war; sanctions on adversaries |
Influence
projected globally without formal annexation or colonies; control via
economic leverage. |
|
Extreme Coercion
and Reordering |
Denial of
Palestinian two-state solution; forced displacement; vision of Gaza as a
resort area |
Populations and
territories are reshaped to align with U.S. strategic and ideological
objectives. |
|
Domestic-Political
Entanglement |
Linking foreign
policy to protecting American workers and populist messaging |
Domestic politics
directly drives international coercive strategies, amplifying performativity. |
|
Redefinition of
International Norms |
Unilateral
actions overriding multilateral norms and agreements |
Challenges
traditional rules of sovereignty, diplomacy, and human rights, reshaping
global order. |
Conceptualizing MAGA-era Foreign Policy as “Peace
by Force”
The concept of NWI is introduced to capture a mode of
state behavior that is distinct from both classical realism and traditional
imperialism. While classical realism emphasizes the pursuit of national
interest and power balance, and traditional imperialism focuses on territorial
conquest and structural domination, MAGA-era U.S. foreign policy demonstrates a
hybrid form of coercive, ideologically performative, and opportunistically
transactional imperialism.
The 2018–2019 U.S.–China trade war exemplifies NWI’s
logic. Tariffs were used not merely as retaliatory measures but to extract
concessions, project power, and signal resolve, even at domestic economic cost.
Unlike classical realism, which treats economic leverage as a strategic
instrument for long-term stability, NWI weaponizes economic tools for immediate
political and strategic gain.
MAGA-era threats toward Venezuela, Iran, and North
Korea demonstrate coercive force without territorial conquest. Unlike
traditional imperialism, which relies on structural control or annexation, NWI
emphasizes psychological dominance, signaling, and transactional threat,
achieving influence without formal occupation.
The renegotiation of NAFTA into USMCA, coupled with
pressure on NATO allies to increase contributions, illustrates the
transactional and opportunistic nature of NWI. Alliances are treated as tools
for immediate leverage, linked to domestic political legitimacy rather than
enduring international commitments.
MAGA-era policy is uniquely
performative. Former President Trump’s statement: “We won the WWI and we
won the WWII. That’s why I changed the name of Secretary of Defense to
Secretary of War” epitomizes the normative militarization and rhetorical
audacity central to NWI. By invoking historical victories and renaming a key
institution, the statement signals domestic and international authority,
reinforcing the ideological and symbolic dimension of power projection. Other
examples include the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, bombing Iran’s
nuclear facilities, denying the right of statehood for Palestine and
unconditional support for Israel, which similarly intertwine performative
signaling with strategic coercion.
Examples such as the attempted purchase of Greenland
and the focus on rare earth elements in Ukraine showcase audacious opportunism.
NWI projects influence opportunistically, seeking material and strategic
advantage without permanent territorial occupation.
Policies undermining the two-state solution,
supporting forced displacement, and envisioning Gaza as a commercialized zone
illustrate the unapologetic coercion and normative reordering of territories
and populations.
NWI operates beyond established rules of sovereignty,
multilateral negotiation, and human rights, emphasizing unilateral action and
dominance. By linking domestic populist narratives to global coercive
strategies, NWI exemplifies the fusion of ideological performance with raw
power projection.
Consequently, MAGA-era foreign policy under NWI
demonstrates that contemporary U.S. power is naked in its assertiveness, wild
in its opportunism, and ideologically performative. It is coercive and
transactional, projecting influence without the structural or territorial
trappings of classical imperialism.
Including the rhetorical dimension (Trump’s explicit
celebration of military dominance) underscores that NWI is not merely a set of
strategic actions but a performative doctrine, combining audacious signaling,
domestic political entanglement, and normative coercion. NWI thus fills a
critical explanatory gap, offering a lens to understand the methodology,
ideology, and audacity of MAGA-era statecraft.
MAGA-era foreign policy can be conceptualized as a
doctrine of “peace by force” because it treats coercion, domination, and
transactional leverage as the primary instruments for maintaining international
order. Unlike classical realism, where military and economic power are tools
for deterrence or balance, peace by force transforms power into a normative and
performative mechanism: compliance is achieved through fear, intimidation, and
the threat of unilateral action, rather than mutual agreement, negotiation, or
international consensus. Key features include the following:
Military threats, economic sanctions, and aggressive
diplomacy are not merely strategic tools but they are normative instruments
intended to compel behavioral change. The example is to use military force
against Iran or Venezuela without direct occupation demonstrate that the goal
is compliance, not conquest.
Policies are highly situational, opportunistic, and
transactional. The U.S. does not seek structural control or permanent
territorial gain but leverages circumstances for immediate advantage. Example
is the attempted purchase of Greenland or pressure on NATO allies for financial
contributions illustrates the use of coercion opportunistically.
Foreign policy acts as a performative tool, signaling
power to both domestic audiences and international actors. Example is the unconditional
support for Israel and rhetoric emphasizing “peace through strength”
demonstrate ideological assertion intertwined with coercive strategy.
MAGA-era foreign policy aligns with domestic political
goals. Coercion and force projection serve both strategic objectives abroad and
populist legitimacy at home. Example is the tariffs on China were framed not
only as strategic but as protection for American workers, linking international
coercion with domestic electoral incentives.
Peace is redefined not as stability achieved through
cooperation or justice, but as the absence of resistance enforced through fear
and dominance. Compliance and acquiescence are prioritized over negotiation or
norm-based agreements.
Thus, MAGA-era foreign policy embodies “peace by
force” because it systematically uses coercion, opportunism, and ideological
performativity to achieve order. This differs fundamentally from classical
realism, which emphasizes balance, and traditional imperialism, which
emphasizes structural domination. Instead, the doctrine operates in a fluid,
non-territorial, and performatively assertive manner, making it a distinct
contemporary paradigm in international relations, a clear manifestation of NWI.
Historical Precedents and Ideological Frameworks
Informing MAGA-era Foreign Policy
Thinkers like Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hans
Morgenthau emphasized the centrality of power, survival, and national interest
in international relations. MAGA-era policies reflect realist logic in rhetoric
such as prioritizing American interests, maximizing relative power, and using
coercion as a tool of influence. The U.S. acts to maintain dominance and
prevent rivals from gaining disproportionate power.
Theodore Roosevelt’s adage “speak softly, but carry a
big stick” exemplifies military threats as instruments of influence. MAGA-era
military posturing mirrors this logic but differs in audacity and opportunism
because threats are often public, performative, and transactional rather than
restrained.
U.S. strategies during the Cold War combined economic
leverage, military presence, and ideological projection to contain rivals. MAGA-era
policy inherits this toolkit of coercion, but unlike Cold War strategies, it
targets both allies and adversaries opportunistically and prioritizes immediate
gains over strategic consistency.
Post–Cold War interventions (Iraq 2003, Afghanistan
2001) emphasized ideology-driven assertive policies, including democracy
promotion and moral framing of U.S. power. MAGA-era doctrine shares the
performative, ideological dimension, but unlike classical neo-conservatism, it
operates with transactional pragmatism rather than normative internationalist
ambition.
Traditional U.S. imperialism involved territorial
expansion, resource extraction, or formal spheres of influence (e.g.,
Philippines, Latin America). MAGA-era policy represents a non-territorial,
opportunistic form of imperialism (the core of NWI) where coercion, economic
leverage, and performative dominance replace structural occupation.
MAGA-era foreign policy is informed by realist and
imperialist traditions, but it transforms them into a new, audacious paradigm: Naked
meaning overt, unapologetic use of power, wild meaning opportunistic, flexible,
transactional, and domestically performative. It is also ideologically
performative meaning signaling strength for domestic legitimacy and global
deterrence simultaneously. This combination of historical precedent and
ideological adaptation cannot be fully explained by classical realism or
traditional imperialism, justifying the conceptual introduction of NWI.
Historical Roots and Emergence of NWI
MAGA-era foreign policy is deeply rooted in historical
traditions of U.S. power projection yet simultaneously represents a radical
departure from classical paradigms. Drawing on classical realism, the U.S.
continues to prioritize national interest, relative power, and strategic
advantage, reflecting an enduring concern for survival and influence in the
international system. Similarly, the historical practices of Roosevelt’s big
stick diplomacy and Cold War coercion provide clear precedents for the use of
threats and leverage to shape outcomes without necessarily resorting to
permanent occupation.
However, MAGA-era policies differ in scope, audacity,
and operational logic, giving rise to a distinct mode of imperialism. Unlike
traditional imperialism, which relied on territorial expansion and structural
control, and unlike classical realism, which emphasizes calculated balance,
MAGA-era policy employs coercion as a normative instrument, intertwining
military threats, economic leverage, ideological performativity, and domestic
political incentives. The administration’s transactional and opportunistic diplomacy—illustrated
by actions such as the attempted purchase of Greenland, aggressive trade wars,
unconditional support for Israel, and the reordering of Palestinian territories
exemplifies this new logic.
This convergence of historical precedent and radical
innovation justifies the introduction of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI) as a
conceptual framework. NWI captures the naked assertiveness of MAGA-era
strategies, their wild opportunism, and the performative intertwining of
domestic politics and international coercion. In this sense, MAGA-era foreign
policy is both a continuation of America’s historical coercive toolkit and a
novel transformation, producing a doctrine aptly described as “peace by force.”
NWI explains the non-territorial, audacious, and
ideologically performative dimensions of MAGA-era foreign policy. It highlights
the feedback loop between domestic political incentives and international
assertiveness. It situates MAGA-era policy within the broader continuum of U.S.
imperialism while demonstrating a clear qualitative departure that existing
theories fail to fully capture.
Operationalization of “Peace by Force” in
MAGA-era U.S. Foreign Policy
The doctrine of “peace by force” under MAGA-era U.S.
foreign policy is operationalized through the integrated use of military,
economic, and diplomatic strategies, all of which are coordinated to produce
coercive compliance, ideological signaling, and transactional advantage. This
operational logic is distinct from classical realism or traditional imperialism
because it emphasizes performative audacity, domestic legitimacy, and
opportunistic flexibility rather than structural occupation or balance-of-power
calculations.
Military threats, posturing, and selective deployments
exemplify coercive leverage without permanent occupation. Examples are the threats
of direct action against Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea and increased U.S.
military presence in strategic regions to signal dominance and deter
adversaries. These actions are often highly performative, designed to signal
strength to both domestic audiences and international actors, as illustrated by
Trump’s rhetoric celebrating historical military victories.
Economic tools are weaponized to extract concessions,
assert influence, and reinforce domestic political narratives. Examples are the
tariffs and trade wars, particularly against China, framed as protection for
American workers and sanctions imposed on adversarial states to coerce
compliance without direct military engagement. Economic coercion under MAGA
demonstrates transactional opportunism, using leverage in targeted, sometimes
unilateral, ways rather than relying on multilateral institutions or long-term
strategic planning.
Diplomacy is conducted transactionally, emphasizing
short-term gains, ideological alignment, and performative signaling. Examples
are renegotiation of NAFTA into USMCA to assert leverage and domestic
legitimacy, pressure on NATO allies to increase contributions, linking alliance
commitments to immediate concessions and unconditional support for Israel,
redefining U.S. engagement in the Middle East to signal loyalty, power, and
normative dominance.
MAGA-era foreign policy operationalizes coercion
through ideological performativity, aligning foreign policy actions with
populist domestic narratives. Example is Trump’s renaming of the Secretary of
Defense to Secretary of War which exemplifies the fusion of rhetoric,
institutional symbolism, and military signaling, reinforcing the doctrine as
both strategic and performative.
The synergistic combination of military threats,
economic leverage, and transactional diplomacy, amplified by performative
rhetoric, constitutes the operational core of “peace by force”. Compliance and influence are achieved not
through formal occupation, structural domination, or negotiated settlements but
through audacious, opportunistic, and ideologically infused pressure,
consistent with the conceptual logic of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI).
A recent empirical illustration of the performative
and ambiguous coercion central to NWI occurred when President Trump publicly
warned Hamas that “if Hamas continues to kill people in Gaza… we will have no
choice but to go in and kill them.” The comment, issued on a public platform,
both dramatizes the normalization of lethal coercion as public policy rhetoric
and exemplifies the indirect operational logic of NWI: the president
subsequently clarified that U.S. ground forces would not themselves be the intervening
party and suggested action would occur “under our auspices” by proximate
actors. This sequence (blunt public ultimatum followed by operational ambiguity)
encapsulates how NWI converts rhetorical audacity into leverage while avoiding
the costs of formal occupation, thereby reshaping norms, constraining
multilateral arrangements, and pressuring regional partners to act under U.S.
political cover. (Butler, 2021).
Divergences and Continuities of MAGA-era Foreign
Policy
MAGA-era foreign policy represents both a continuation
of historical U.S. power projection and a qualitative departure from earlier
paradigms. MAGA-era strategies inherit the U.S. tradition of using military,
economic, and diplomatic instruments to maintain influence, echoing classical
realism and Cold War deterrence logic. The overarching goal remains the
preservation and assertion of U.S. dominance in the international system. As in
historical contexts, alliances continue to be leveraged to maximize strategic
advantage.
Divergences and Innovations:
Unlike classical imperialism, MAGA-era policy does not
require structural occupation; influence is asserted opportunistically,
targeting resources, trade, and strategic leverage (e.g., Greenland, rare earth
elements in Ukraine).
Policies are publicly audacious and rhetorically
amplified, exemplified by statements celebrating historical wars and
institutional renaming (Secretary of War). This performativity signals power
domestically and internationally.
Unlike previous administrations that often-separated
foreign policy from immediate electoral concerns, MAGA-era strategies are
deeply entwined with populist narratives, voter mobilization, and domestic
legitimacy (e.g., framing tariffs as protection for American workers).
Traditional respect for sovereignty, multilateral
agreements, and negotiated settlements is selectively bypassed, reflecting a
naked willingness to reshape norms in line with U.S. interests.
Consequently, the fusion of audacious rhetoric,
opportunistic strategies, and performative coercion constitutes a new
operational logic, distinguishing MAGA-era foreign policy from both classical
realism and traditional imperialism. These divergences justify the
conceptualization of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI), which captures the
audacity, flexibility, and ideological performativity of this contemporary form
of power projection.
MAGA-era foreign policy is therefore simultaneously
continuity and rupture: it continues the U.S. pursuit of global dominance but
operationalizes it through transactional, ideologically performative, and
audaciously coercive means, establishing NWI as a distinct conceptual
framework. Thorsten Wojczewski. (2020).
As a recent example, Trump declared on 16 October 2025
that “if Hamas continues to kill people in Gaza, we will have no choice but to
go in and kill them.” The statement, later clarified as referring to indirect
action “under our auspices,” reflects the performative and ambiguous
operational logic of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI), where coercion is both
dramatized and externalized. (Beaulac, 2019)
This episode encapsulates the NWI doctrine’s central
tension: coercion is expressed through public spectacle and strategic
ambiguity, reinforcing U.S. hegemonic dominance while blurring the line between
deterrence and provocation. (Trump 2025; Reuters 2025; Associated Press, 2025;
The Times of Israel, 2025)
Implications of NWI for Global Stability,
International Norms, and Alliances
The operational logic of NWI has profound and
multifaceted implications for the international system, extending beyond
immediate strategic gains to affect global stability, normative frameworks, and
alliance structures.
NWI produces a form of conditional and coercively
enforced stability. Compliance by other states is often secured through fear,
intimidation, or transactional concessions, rather than through consensus or
shared rules.
While short-term order may be achieved, the risk of
miscalculation, escalation, or sudden rupture increases, as adversaries may
respond unpredictably to audacious, opportunistic moves (e.g., threats to Iran
or Venezuela, unilateral resource grabs).
NWI undermines established principles of sovereignty,
multilateral diplomacy, and negotiated settlements. By prioritizing unilateral
action and performative coercion, it challenges the normative frameworks that
have historically underpinned international relations. Examples are the denial
of the Palestinian two-state solution, coupled with forced displacement
policies and recasting Gaza as a commercialized territory reflects a
norm-redefining audacity incompatible with traditional human rights and
sovereignty norms.
Persistent adoption of NWI could erode the legitimacy
of international law and multilateral institutions, encouraging similar
behavior among other powers.
Under NWI, alliances are treated transactionally
rather than as durable, trust-based commitments. Examples are the pressure on
NATO allies to increase contributions and conditional support or leverage over
trade partners (e.g., USMCA renegotiation).
While such transactional tactics may achieve
short-term concessions, they weaken long-term trust and cohesion, potentially
destabilizing traditional alliances and prompting adversaries to form
counterbalancing coalitions.
NWI is uniquely reinforced by the integration of
domestic political, economic and financial imperatives such as big domestic and
international debt burden and enormous budget deficits. Policies designed to
appeal to domestic constituencies amplify performative and audacious strategies
internationally. (Wojczewski, 2020b).
This feedback loop may intensify aggressive behavior,
as international coercion is continually legitimized and reinforced by domestic
political gain. (Department of
Defense, 2018).
Therefore, NWI generates a new logic of global order,
where stability is enforced by audacious coercion rather than negotiated rules,
norms are redefined according to strategic opportunism, and alliances are
instrumentalized rather than trusted. While effective in projecting power and
securing short-term compliance, NWI increases systemic risk and challenges the
long-term sustainability of international institutions and normative
frameworks. (Othman, 2024).
Implications of the “Peace by Force” Doctrine for
Global Stability, International Norms, and Alliances
The MAGA-era doctrine of “peace by force”,
operationalized through NWI has profound implications for the international
system, affecting stability, normative frameworks, and alliance structures. (National Security Service, 2017).
Stability under NWI is conditional and coercively
enforced, rather than negotiated or consensual. Compliance by other states is
secured through threats, intimidation, or transactional concessions, increasing
the risk of miscalculation or escalation. Examples are the threats against Iran
and Venezuela, unilateral military posturing, and audacious resource grabs
illustrate that short-term order may be maintained, but systemic
unpredictability grows, making crises more volatile. (Satoru,
2025).
NWI challenges long-established norms such as
sovereignty, self-determination, multilateralism, and negotiated settlements. Examples
are the denial of the two-state solution in Palestine and support for forced
displacement, reframing Gaza as a commercialized zone, undermining human rights
and customary norms and shutting the eyes for ongoing massacres and acts widely
condemned as violations of international humanitarian law” and even supporting
them. By prioritizing unilateral action and performative coercion, NWI erodes
the legitimacy of international law, potentially encouraging similar behavior
among other powers. (Verbeek,
Bertjan and Andrej Zaslove, 2017).
Alliances are instrumentalized transactionally, rather
than treated as durable, trust-based commitments. Examples are pressure on NATO
allies to increase contributions and USMCA renegotiation framed as domestic
political leverage. This transactional approach weakens long-term cohesion and
trust, prompting allies to hedge or form counterbalancing coalitions, thereby
reshaping traditional alliance dynamics. (Wojczewski,
2020a).
Domestic political imperatives reinforce NWI
internationally: populist rhetoric legitimizes audacious strategies, which in
turn enhance domestic support, creating a feedback loop that sustains coercive
and performative policies. NWI generates a new logic of global order, where
stability is maintained through audacious coercion, norms are selectively
redefined, and alliances are leveraged opportunistically. While effective for
projecting power and securing short-term compliance, this approach increases
systemic risk, undermines multilateral norms, and destabilizes alliance
networks, signaling a fundamental shift in U.S. global strategy.
Domestic Political Dynamics and the
Sustainability of “Peace by Force”
The adoption and persistence of the MAGA-era doctrine
of “peace by force” are deeply intertwined with domestic political dynamics,
particularly populist rhetoric, electoral incentives, and the cultivation of a
loyal support base. These domestic considerations do not merely accompany
foreign policy; they actively shape its formulation, operational logic, and
ideological performativity, reinforcing the characteristics of NWI.
MAGA-era foreign policy is framed through rhetoric
emphasizing strength, national pride, and historical victories, signaling to
domestic audiences that the administration is assertively defending U.S.
interests. Example is Trump’s renaming of the Secretary of Defense to Secretary
of War, coupled with references to World Wars, frames militarized action as
both natural and heroic, creating political legitimacy for audacious
international strategies. This rhetoric serves to normalize coercion and
opportunistic behavior, making aggressive actions palatable and even desirable
for domestic constituencies. (McManus and
friends, 2025)
Foreign policy under MAGA is closely tied to electoral
narratives. Coercive actions, trade wars, and alliance pressure are framed as
benefits for domestic populations, linking international dominance with voter
satisfaction and political loyalty. Example is the tariffs on China which are
presented as protecting American jobs and industry, integrating international
coercion with domestic economic narratives. By linking foreign policy to
short-term domestic gain, the administration creates a feedback loop that
reinforces both the adoption and the sustainability of coercive strategies. Audacious,
performative, and ideologically assertive policies serve to mobilize a loyal
electorate, rewarding displays of strength with political support.
Sustaining NWI requires continuous performative
signaling, where rhetorical audacity, military threats, and opportunistic
diplomacy are used as tools to maintain domestic legitimacy and reinforce the
perception of decisive leadership.
Domestic political imperatives amplify performative
international behavior. Conversely, audacious foreign policy successes or
threats reinforce domestic support, creating a self-sustaining cycle. This
feedback loop ensures that “peace by force” is not merely a strategic choice
but a structurally embedded doctrine, continually reinforced by domestic
political dynamics. MAGA-era foreign policy demonstrates that domestic politics
and international coercion are mutually constitutive under NWI. Populist
rhetoric, electoral incentives, and the cultivation of a loyal support base
enable and legitimize audacious, opportunistic, and ideologically performative
policies, ensuring the adoption, operationalization, and long-term
sustainability of “peace by force.”
OVERALL ASESSMENT AND CONCLUSION
This study has examined MAGA-era U.S. foreign policy
through the lens of Naked and Wild Imperialism (NWI), conceptualizing it as a
doctrine of “peace by force”. The findings indicate that this approach
represents both a continuity and a rupture in American international strategy,
combining historical practices of coercion with audacity, opportunism, and
performative ideology.
MAGA-era foreign policy operationalizes “peace by
force” through the integrated use of military, economic, and diplomatic tools,
reinforced by domestic political imperatives. NWI captures this logic by
emphasizing three defining characteristics: naked assertiveness, wild
opportunism, and ideologically performative action. Unlike classical realism or
traditional imperialism, NWI accounts for transactional flexibility, rhetorical
audacity, and domestic electoral feedback loops.
MAGA-era strategies draw on historical precedents,
including Roosevelt’s “big stick” diplomacy, Cold War coercion, and
neo-conservative assertiveness, reflecting a longstanding U.S. emphasis on
power projection. Divergences occur in the operationalization of influence,
which is opportunistic, normatively flexible, and directly linked to domestic
populist narratives.
Military coercion is projected through threats,
posturing, and selective deployments. Economic leverage is applied via tariffs,
sanctions, and resource-focused opportunism. Diplomacy is transactional,
performative, and opportunistic, while rhetorical strategies, exemplified by
Trump’s renaming of the Secretary of Defense to Secretary of War, legitimize
and amplify aggressive policy domestically and internationally.
For global stability, NWI produces conditional order,
maintained through coercion but subject to miscalculation and escalation. For
international norms, NWI challenges sovereignty, multilateralism, and human
rights principles, potentially undermining established international law. For
alliances, transactional manipulation weakens trust and cohesion, prompting
partners to hedge or counterbalance.
Populist rhetoric, electoral incentives, and the
cultivation of a loyal support base reinforce the adoption and sustainability
of NWI. A feedback loop between domestic approval and performative foreign
policy ensures the structural embedding of “peace by force” as a policy
doctrine.
NWI provides a novel framework for understanding
MAGA-era foreign policy, bridging gaps left by classical realism, traditional
imperialism, and neo-conservative paradigms. It explains the integration of
rhetoric, opportunistic strategy, and domestic political imperatives in U.S.
global behavior, offering insights into the evolving logic of contemporary
power projection.
As conclusion, MAGA-era U.S. foreign policy represents
a radical evolution of coercive statecraft, combining historical continuities
with bold departures. Conceptualizing this approach as Naked and Wild
Imperialism provides a theoretically rigorous and empirically grounded
explanation of how “peace by force” is conceived, operationalized, and
sustained, offering a critical perspective for analyzing U.S. strategy and
emerging patterns of global power projection.
REFERENCES
Agnew, John. (2017) Globalization and Sovereignty: Beyond the Territorial Trap.
2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 978-1538105191
Associated Press. (2025). “Trump Threatens Hamas over Gaza Violence.”
Associated Press, October 16, 2025. https://apnews.com/
Beaulac, Stephane. (2019) The Power of Language in the Making of International
Law: The Word Sovereignty in Bodin and Vattel and the Myth of Westphalia
(Developments in International Law, vol. 21) By Stephane Beaulac. Leiden;
Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers
Butler,
Judith. (2021). Excitable Speech: A
Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge, 1997. ISBN 9780367705244
Butler,
Judith. (2021). Trump and the
Bureaucracy of America First. Foreign Affairs 97, no. 3 (2018): 46–54.
Carr, E. H. (1939). The Twenty Years’ Crisis,
1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London:
Macmillan,
Department of Defense (2018). Summary of the National
Defense Strategy Sharpening the American Military’s Competitive Edge. https://media.defense.gov/2020/May/18/2002302061/-1/-1/1/2018-NATIONAL-DEFENSE-STRATEGY-SUMMARY.PDF
Gilpin, Robert. (1981) War and Change in World
Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hamid, Shadi. (2018). Deconstructing
Trump’s foreign policy. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/deconstructing-trumps-foreign-policy/
Hobson, John M. (2012). The
Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory,
1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, John M., and Leonard Seabrooke, eds. (2007). Everyday
Politics of the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Humire, Joseph M. (2024). The
Foreign Policy Foundations of Trumpism. June 2024. NORTEAMERICA, Ano 19, numero
1, enero-junio de 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/cisan.24487228e.2024.1.675
Lenin, Vladimir I. (1939). Imperialism,
the Highest Stage of Capitalism. New York: International Publishers.
McManus, Allison, Ryan Mulholland and Andrew Miller.
(2025) 100 Days of the Trump Administration’s Foreign Policy: Global Chaos,
American Weakness, and Human Suffering. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/100-days-of-the-trump-administrations-foreign-policy-global-chaos-american-weakness-and-human-suffering/
Mearsheimer, John J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great
Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
National Security Service. (2017). National Security Strategy
of the United States of America. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf
Nye, Joseph S., and Robert O. Keohane. (1977). Power
and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown.
Othman, Rose. (2024). Analyzing Trump's Foreign
Policy Expectations. https://ssrn.com/abstract=5075540 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5075540
Reuters. (2025). “Trump Warns Hamas: Stop Killing
Gazans or ‘We Will Go In and Kill Them.’” Reuters, October 16, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/
Satoru, M. (2025). The Second Trump Administration’s
Foreign Engagement and Its Geostrategy Toward the Four Regions. Asia-Pacific
Review, 32(1), 54–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13439006.2025.2513207
The Times of
Israel. (2025). Trump: If Hamas doesn’t stop killing Gazans, ‘we will have no
choice but to go in and kill them’. https://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-if-hamas-doesnt-stop-killing-gazans-we-will-have-no-choice-but-to-go-in-and-kill-them/
Trump, Donald J. (2025). Truth Social post, October
16, 2025, quoted in “Trump Threatens Hamas over Gaza Violence,” Associated
Press, October 16, 2025, https://apnews.com/
Verbeek,
Bertjan, and Andrej Zaslove. (2017). 'Populism and Foreign Policy', in Cristobal
Rovira Kaltwasser, and others (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Populism, Oxford
Handbooks (2017; online edn, Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198803560.013.15.
Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979). Theory
of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wojczewski, T. (2020a). Trump, Populism, and American
Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy Analysis, Volume 16, Issue 3, July 2020, Pages
292–311, https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/orz021
Wojczewski, T. (2020b). Statement on the Development
of the 2025 National Defense Strategy. https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/article/4172735/statement-on-the-development-of-the-2025-national-defense-strategy/
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder