OPINION: How America’s strategy of exported disorder Is turning inward
By Timofey Bordachev
For decades, the United States built its global influence on a simple premise: manage instability abroad while maintaining calm at home. Washington often positioned itself as a referee in crises around the world, believing it could shape outcomes while remaining insulated from the consequences.
The unexpected election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York—a 34-year-old progressive activist whose rise defied political expectations—reflects a deeper shift in American politics. His victory is not merely a local surprise; it highlights how the turbulence once associated with US interventions overseas is now rooted in domestic political life.
For years, America’s foreign policy relied on a strategy that some critics describe as “managed disorder”: weakening rivals, preventing regional powers from consolidating influence, and positioning the US and its allies as indispensable to restoring order. Britain and parts of Europe followed similar approaches.
This framework had several goals: • preventing smaller states from forming alliances that might sideline the West • keeping emerging powers—especially Russia and China—occupied with regional challenges • sustaining global dependence on Western-led “stability” initiatives
Yet the outcomes of major US interventions—whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or the Balkans—have ultimately done little to strengthen America’s global standing. Instead, they have eroded confidence in Washington’s judgment and reduced the moral authority it once claimed in international affairs.
While the US was exporting instability abroad, it fostered an internal expectation of political stability at home. Today, that internal calm has fractured. Deep polarization, institutional mistrust, and increasingly unpredictable electoral outcomes reveal a society grappling with uncertainty—conditions reminiscent of the very crises America once sought to manage elsewhere.
This shift has global implications. Long-time US partners, particularly Israel and Turkey, are now acting with increasing independence. For decades, these countries played key roles in Washington’s regional strategy: Israel as a counterweight in the Middle East, and Turkey as NATO’s anchor on the southern flank.
But under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey has asserted itself more forcefully in regional affairs, pursuing policies that do not always align with NATO priorities. Israel, meanwhile, has taken unilateral steps that have further weakened prospects for a Palestinian state.
With both countries following their own strategic paths—sometimes at cross-purposes—a future confrontation between Turkey and Israel, once unimaginable, can no longer be dismissed. Ironically, their growing assertiveness stems in part from Washington’s waning ability to influence the behaviour of even its closest allies.
This erosion of control reflects a broader challenge: the United States increasingly lacks a coherent long-term foreign policy. Many of its current moves appear driven more by domestic political pressures than by strategic planning. Washington’s recent outreach to Syria’s new leadership, for instance, seems less like a deliberate recalibration and more like a response to shifting internal debates.
The United States remains a major global power. But its long-standing approach—projecting strength abroad while assuming stability at home—faces unprecedented strain. As the country navigates this transition, its partners and rivals alike are recalibrating their expectations, signalling that a new and more uncertain geopolitical era is emerging.
