A case against isolationism: why the USA should continue to lead?

Özet

This article examines the strategic risks and limitations of isolationism for hegemons, particularly focusing on the United States, through the framework of classical realist international relations theories. In response to the resurgence of isolationist rhetoric in U.S. political discourse, the study argues that isolationism is suboptimal for both dominant and declining hegemons. Drawing on neorealism and hegemonic stability theory, it contends that the active maintenance of military alliances and international commitments is essential for safeguarding national security and economic interests. Isolationism, while seemingly reducing short-term foreign policy burdens, ultimately diminishes a hegemon’s capacity to deter rival powers, preserve regional stability, and sustain a favorable global economic order. By examining the structural causes of hegemonic decline and the indispensable role of military power in securing both security and prosperity, the article concludes that sustained engagement, rather than strategic retrenchment, remains the optimal path for a hegemon like the United States.