Was Gaza the Laboratory of a New U.S. Foreign Policy?

The transformations witnessed by American foreign policy in recent years cannot be understood solely through changes in administrations, but rather through a deeper shift in the tools and references that govern the behavior of American power in the international system. During Donald Trump's era, the strategic objectives of the United States did not change as much as the mechanisms for achieving them, where a clear trend emerged towards reducing the cost of foreign intervention, whether at the human, financial, or political level, while maintaining the ability to impose facts and achieve results.

This approach was distinguished by a relative departure from the traditional model of regime change that prevailed in previous decades, which relied on large-scale wars, long-term occupations, and often complex legal and ethical narratives that later proved to be fragile or selective. In contrast, the new approach shifted towards the logic of direct and time-limited intervention, based on targeting political decision-making centers, and employing economic, legal, and security pressure tools simultaneously, allowing for significant political impact without engaging in open conflicts.

This shift reflects a pragmatic mentality that sees foreign policy as an extension of the deal logic, where successes are measured by the balance of cost and return, not by the extent of commitment to value discourse. From this perspective, intervention is no longer presented as war, but as an executive, security, or legal measure, even if it inherently involves a clear violation of the principles of sovereignty and non-interference stipulated in international law. This method gives the American decision-maker a wider margin of movement, given the reduced likelihood of internal opposition linked to human losses or long-term financial exhaustion.

However, this shift cannot be isolated from the structural context of the international system. The new pattern in American thinking indicates a gradual transition from the hegemony model that characterized the twentieth century, based on managing influence through international institutions, alliances, and formal legitimacy, to a logic closer to imperial mentality, where power is exercised more directly and openly. This shift comes amid a growing awareness in Washington of its declining status as the sole superpower, and the rise of competing international powers, foremost among them China, seeking to reshape global power balances.

In this framework, the question arises about the role of the war on Gaza in crystallizing or accelerating this approach. The political and military coverage provided by the United States to Israel constituted a practical model for how to disrupt international accountability mechanisms, neutralize UN institutions, and provide full cover for the use of force to achieve specific political and military objectives. This support was not merely an expression of a traditional alliance, but a manifestation of a political will that allows suspending rules when they conflict with calculations of power and interest.

From this perspective, Gaza can be seen as a testing ground for a new phase where international legitimacy is redefined based on the ability to impose facts, not on commitment to the law. The international incapacity, or silence regarding what happened, contributed to consolidating this model, encouraging its generalization in other contexts, where direct force becomes a legitimate tool for reshaping political environments.

Although this type of intervention may seem less bloody in its direct form compared to traditional wars, it does not necessarily mean a reduction in violence or stability. The cost in this case does not disappear, but transforms into an invisible or deferred cost, often borne by weak societies, whether through economic exhaustion, dismantling of political structures, or perpetuating instability.

In conclusion, what American foreign policy is witnessing is not a withdrawal from the international system, but a repositioning within it, based on the transition from disguised institutional hegemony to a more explicit exercise of power. If this shift stabilizes as a permanent pattern, it portends further erosion of the rules of the international system, and poses serious challenges to the future of global stability in a phase where power centers are increasing and the ability of shared rules to regulate international behavior is declining.