Countries have interests, not friends

2026-03-22 - 00:25

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has shifted the United States trade policy by instituting protectionist tariffs on both allies and foes. His approach is best characterised as transactional, as he views international relations through the lens of short-term, quid pro quo business deals, instead of developing long-term strategic partnerships. Trump consistently prioritises immediate, concrete gains—whether economic or security-related—over broader principles such as ideology, alliances, or adherence to institutional norms, frequently using threats or incentives to secure specific bilateral outcomes. The main argument is that his administration favours short-term, transactional gains over conventional, long-term diplomatic approaches. As a consequence, treaties with longstanding allies and neighbours have been discarded without negotiation or warning. America First has meant that traditional alliances are treated as commercial transactions, with security guarantees contingent on economic concessions. The only exception to this seems to be Israel. The United States, as a global hegemon, operates approximately 750 to 800 overseas military bases in about 80 foreign countries and territories. It maintains a significant military presence in the Gulf region, with approximately 19 major sites in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Bahrain, for example, is the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet. The reason for this heavy military presence in the Gulf region is that the US was not always self-sufficient in oil and once relied on the Gulf states for a significant share of its energy needs. The Gulf region was always considered unstable. This explains Texaco’s decision to locate a major refinery (capacity: 450,000 barrels a day) in Point-a-Pierre, Trinidad, in the 1950s, outside the turbulent Middle East, to process crude oil (from the Middle East) for export. The primary purpose of the bases in the Middle East was to safeguard US access to the region’s energy resources and to deter aggression by projecting US power. The legal basis for these agreements is found in the Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) signed by each country. This agreement grants broad privileges and legal immunity to US personnel, and the US military presence would limit the hosts’ exposure to other regional aggressors. That was the theory. The current war between the US and Israel against Iran has created a paradox. The Gulf states cannot restrict the US right to use those bases to attack Iran. Instead of acting as a deterrent shield, the bases have served as a magnet for Iranian retaliation against US aggression. Thus, although the Gulf states did not attack Iran, Iran has treated them as US co-belligerents. In the process, they have suffered collateral damage to civilian and commercial interests, creating significant financial and reputational damage that will undermine their attempts to become oases for foreign direct investment. All relationships, even relationships between states, are built on trust. The US attacks on Iran have demonstrated that the US presence is no iron-clad security umbrella. Further, no state can expect that another state will sacrifice its self-interest. US actions in the Gulf have been calibrated to promote Israel’s interests, not those of the host countries. Their economic priorities require peace, not war. Similarly, maintaining ties with the US limits their sovereignty to develop security partnerships with other countries. The takeaway from the foregoing is that the many different and conflicting explanations proffered for the location of the military radar in Tobago were all red herrings. Either the Government had no choice in the matter or hoped that the US would agree to whatever favour T&T requested. Will we ever know if the decision worked in T&T’s interest?