Militarism, Rhetoric, and the Fragility of Alliances
What I Feared in 2017 — And What Actually Happened
by David Palethorpe
In March 2017, early into the presidency of Donald Trump, I wrote an article asking whether he might start a third world war.
It was a stark question, but not a sensational one.
I did not believe tanks would march across Europe overnight.
I feared something subtler — and ultimately more corrosive: the weakening of diplomacy, the transactional recasting of alliances, and the elevation of rhetoric above strategy.
Nearly a decade later, the world has not witnessed a formal World War III.
But it has witnessed instability.
Slow and corrosive.
Erosion of diplomatic trust.
Erosion of alliance cohesion.
Erosion of moral authority.
What has unfolded is worth reflecting on — not in anger, but with seriousness.
Militarism Without Diplomatic Balance
The United States’ military capacity remains unmatched. That has never been in doubt.
What has become worrying is the consistent prioritisation of force over diplomacy, and the treatment of alliances as negotiable commodities rather than enduring partnerships.
Military power without diplomatic ballast is inherently unstable.
The post-1945 architecture — embodied in North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the United Nations framework, and collective defence norms — was built on predictability and shared commitment.
When the world’s most powerful military participant signals ambivalence toward those commitments, the ripple effects are profound.
The Myth of “Ending Wars”
Throughout the Trump years, multiple conflicts were proclaimed “ended.”
Some according to Trump between countries that have never been at war with each other and others that don’t even exist.
Troop withdrawals were framed as peace achieved; reduced American casualties were positioned as strategic success.
But ending participation is not the same as ending conflict.
In Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere, instability did not fade — it evolved.
Peace requires settlement, reconciliation and sustainable political order.
Withdrawal without diplomatic closure displaces instability rather than resolves it.
Too often, the distinction between disengagement and resolution was blurred for domestic effect.
The 2026 Attacks on Iran — Legal and Strategic Questions
Today, (March 2026) the United States and Israel launched a large-scale joint military operation against Iran, apparently they state targeting command and control infrastructure, nuclear and ballistic missile facilities, and, according to multiple reports, resulting in the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader and the deaths of children in an attack on a school.
This campaign — known in media accounts as “Operation Epic Fury” or “Operation Lion’s Roar” — has triggered urgent debate over legality, strategy, and consequences.
At the international level, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the strikes as a violation of international law and warned of broader conflict, urging immediate de-escalation.
Many countries, including Russia, China and several UN member states, echoed calls for a peaceful resolution and dialogue.
At home in the United States, lawmakers from both major parties have criticised the attacks as unauthorised and unconstitutional, noting that neither the U.S. Congress nor the American public received a clear legal justification before hostilities commenced, in apparent violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution and Article I of the Constitution.
Civil liberties groups have likewise condemned the strikes as lacking constitutional authority.
This controversy isn’t abstract: the U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress.
Executive military actions of this scale — absent clear, imminent threat or explicit legislative approval — raise profound legal questions about separation of powers and democratic legitimacy.
Greenland, Transactional Logic, and Perception
When proposals surfaced that the United States were determined to “acquire” Greenland, many dismissed it as theatre.
Yet theatre in geopolitics has consequences.
The notion, regardless of seriousness, revealed a worldview inclined toward transactional treatment of alliances and sovereign territory.
Perception matters. Once doubt enters the reliability equation, allies hedge.
And hedging alters the strategic balance.
Venezuela, Precedent and International Order
U.S. involvement in Venezuela — culminating in the removal of Nicolás Maduro — established a worrying precedent: the external removal of a sitting leader by military force.
Even critics of Maduro recognised the gravity of that step.
For smaller nations, it reinforced fears that sovereignty can be overridden.
For adversaries, it became rhetorical ammunition.
For allies, it raised uncomfortable questions about consistency and principle.
International order rests not on universal virtue, but on adherence to shared rules.
When exceptions proliferate, the rule weakens.
Fragility of Alliances
The cumulative effect of these episodes has not been collapse, but brittleness.
Alliances depend on trust.
Trust depends on consistency.
When policy appears driven by personality, grievance or spectacle rather than principle and process, allies adapt:
- Europe strengthens strategic autonomy.
- Asian states diversify security relationships.
- Middle Eastern governments balance among competing powers.
The United States remains powerful — but influence depends as much on the confidence of partners as on the capability of its forces.
Trust, once weakened, takes years to restore.
Where This Leaves the United Kingdom
Britain’s relationship with the United States is deep, historic and strategically vital.
But strength of relationship must not become absence of judgement.
The United Kingdom must resist the drift toward automatic alignment in overseas military ventures — particularly when legal and moral foundations are contested.
We have been here before with tragic consequences for many UK families.
Before committing British forces, intelligence support, or political endorsement, five conditions should be met:
- A clear and defensible basis in international law.
- Credible, independently verified evidence of necessity.
- Broad multilateral backing — not merely bilateral concurrence.
- Defined and realistic strategic objectives.
- A credible exit strategy.
These are not abstractions; they are lessons paid for in blood over the last quarter century.
Iraq fractured public trust.
Libya destabilised a region.
Afghanistan revealed the limits of military nation-building.
Syria demonstrated how proxy conflicts entrench suffering.
If Britain cannot say, “We are not persuaded,” then it is not exercising sovereignty — it is outsourcing judgement.
That is not strength. It is abdication.
An alliance grounded in shared values can withstand disagreement.
Indeed, mature alliances depend upon it.
Trust and Recovery
Trust between nations is strategic currency.
It is built through consistency, reliability and restraint.
It is weakened by unpredictability and unilateralism.
The United States is capable of renewal.
But rebuilding trust will demand sustained commitment to diplomacy, respect for multilateral institutions, and steadiness across electoral cycles.
For Britain, the task is dual:
To remain a committed ally to those who uphold collective defence.
And to remain an independent sovereign actor.
These aims are not incompatible — but they require clarity and courage.
The Lesson
In 2017, I feared a dramatic catastrophe.
What unfolded was something slower — and in some respects more destabilising.
The world did not burn in a single blaze.
It shifted.
It recalibrated.
It grew more brittle.
Militarism without diplomacy weakens alliances.
Rhetoric without restraint corrodes trust.
Power without humility isolates.
The challenge now is not to re-litigate the past.
It is to restore seriousness to foreign policy.
Strength must be coupled with patience.
Alliance must be grounded in principle.
Diplomacy must once again be recognised not as weakness — but as the first instrument of peace.
Because great powers rarely fall in a single moment of fire.
They erode when they forget what made others trust them in the first place.
Leave a comment