Machiavellian Principles in U.S. Foreign Policy

"Politics have no relation to morals." — Niccolò Machiavelli

When Machiavelli penned these words in The Prince, he articulated a cold yet pragmatic vision of governance, one where power and survival outweighed idealism and morality. Few nations have embodied these principles in their foreign policy as clearly and controversially as the United States. America has repeatedly turned to Machiavellian methods—pragmatism, strategic manipulation, and realpolitik—to secure its national interests. While such strategies often achieve intended outcomes, they also ignite fierce ethical debates about their justification and morality.

Cold War Chessboard: The Case of Iran, 1953

Consider the infamous 1953 Iranian coup, where the U.S., through the CIA, orchestrated the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh after he sought to nationalize Iran's oil industry. Mosaddegh threatened American and British economic interests, prompting the U.S. to side pragmatically with authoritarian monarchy rather than democratic governance. "Operation Ajax," as it was codenamed, was textbook Machiavelli—swift, strategic, and unapologetic.

The coup ensured Western control over Iranian oil and solidified U.S. influence in the region. Yet, this pragmatic move planted seeds of resentment, eventually contributing to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and decades of hostility between the two nations. Here lies the Machiavellian paradox: short-term victories achieved at potentially disastrous long-term costs.

The Strategic Calculation

The decision to overthrow Mosaddegh represented a classic Machiavellian calculation:

• Immediate threat: Nationalization of oil threatened Western economic interests

• Strategic response: Remove the democratically elected leader through covert action

• Short-term success: Restored favorable oil agreements and regional influence

• Long-term consequences: Decades of Iranian hostility and regional instability

Realpolitik in Latin America: Chile, 1973

"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both." — Niccolò Machiavelli

America's role in the 1973 Chilean coup underscores this chilling recommendation. Salvador Allende, Chile's democratically elected socialist president, was perceived as a threat during the Cold War. His Marxist policies unsettled U.S. policymakers, leading the Nixon administration, notably influenced by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, to support Augusto Pinochet's violent military coup. Kissinger's role exemplified realpolitik, prioritizing geopolitical pragmatism and strategic stability over democratic ideals and human rights.

While Pinochet's dictatorship offered America strategic stability in South America, the ethical cost was enormous: thousands of Chileans suffered human rights abuses and political repression. The lasting scars of this policy choice continue to echo through Chilean society.

The Human Cost of Pragmatism

The Chilean intervention illustrates the moral complexity of Machiavellian foreign policy:

• Political objective: Prevent Soviet influence in Latin America

• Method employed: Support military coup against elected government

• Strategic outcome: Regional stability and anti-communist ally

• Moral cost: 40,000+ victims of human rights violations under Pinochet

Henry Kissinger: Architect of Realpolitik

Henry Kissinger, U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor under Presidents Nixon and Ford, was a central figure in employing Machiavellian tactics. His foreign policy emphasized pragmatism, balance of power, and strategic calculations over ideological considerations. Kissinger's diplomacy during détente with the Soviet Union and China exemplified realpolitik, as he sought stability even at the cost of aligning with controversial regimes.

Kissinger's Machiavellian Legacy

Kissinger's approach embodied several key Machiavellian principles:

1. Power Balance: Maintaining equilibrium between major powers

2. Strategic Flexibility: Adapting alliances based on national interest

3. Moral Ambiguity: Accepting ethical compromises for strategic gains

4. Long-term Vision: Prioritizing stability over ideological purity

Kissinger's legacy remains deeply polarizing, praised for strategic acumen yet criticized sharply for moral ambiguity. His defenders argue he prevented nuclear war through careful diplomacy; his critics point to the human cost of his realpolitik calculations.

---

The War on Terror and the Machiavellian Dilemma

In the aftermath of 9/11, America once again faced a Machiavellian crossroads. The Bush administration's decisions to invade Afghanistan and later Iraq reflected a belief that aggressive military action and strategic dominance were necessary for national security. Echoing Machiavelli, Vice President Dick Cheney famously stated, "We have to work the dark side, if you will."

The Iraq Paradox

The 2003 invasion of Iraq exemplifies the complexity of Machiavellian foreign policy:

• Stated objective: Remove threat of WMDs and defeat terrorism

• Strategic calculation: Reshape Middle Eastern power dynamics

• Tactical success: Swift removal of Saddam Hussein's regime

• Strategic failure: Regional destabilization and rise of ISIS

While the removal of Saddam Hussein was accomplished swiftly, the power vacuum it created unleashed widespread instability, leading to the rise of extremist groups like ISIS. The U.S. achieved tactical victories yet faced severe moral scrutiny and strategic setbacks, revealing the profound complexity and moral ambiguity inherent in Machiavellian policies.

Ethical Debates: Can the End Justify the Means?

"The end justifies the means." — Niccolò Machiavelli

Machiavelli famously argued that the end justifies the means. Yet, as history repeatedly shows, America's Machiavellian choices often return to haunt it. Critics argue that sacrificing morality for pragmatism corrodes a nation's values and credibility on the global stage. Proponents counter that the realities of international politics leave no choice but pragmatic decisions to safeguard national interests.

The Moral Spectrum

The debate over Machiavellian foreign policy reveals a spectrum of perspectives:

Defenders of Realpolitik argue:

• International relations are inherently amoral

• National survival requires tough choices

• Idealistic policies can lead to greater suffering

• Strategic stability benefits global order

Critics of Machiavellian methods contend:

• Moral compromises undermine democratic values

• Short-term gains create long-term enemies

• Human rights should be non-negotiable

• Credibility requires consistent principles

Modern Crises and “Backfire” Effects

• Ukraine war (2022–present): Washington’s support for Ukraine is ostensibly aimed at preserving Western security, but some analysts warn that pressuring Kyiv to make territorial concessions without a decisive deterrent “will backfire.” For example, the Kyiv Independent cautions that if Ukraine is forced into a bad peace (under U.S. or EU pressure) without security guarantees, it would repeat past mistakes. In practice, Western reliance on Ukraine to bleed Russia may be prolonging the conflict and exposing NATO to escalatory risks (e.g. nuclear brinkmanship), illustrating how a raw power-politics approach can lead to unintended strategic problems.

• Middle East turmoil (2023–2025): U.S. Machiavellian-style interventions in the Middle East have likewise provoked blowback. After the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza, American insistence on staunchly backing Israel (while also engaging Iran) has polarized global opinion. Polls show a sharp drop in U.S. support – even among Americans – for continued military aid to Israel and more demand for diplomacy and humanitarian relief. International reactions have been harsh: in June 2025, news reports noted the world “grappled… with the enormous implications” when the U.S. “inserted itself into Israel’s war against Iran” via direct strikes on Iranian facilities. Allies immediately called for restraint and renewed talks (e.g. Britain urged negotiations with Iran), while Iran-aligned groups framed U.S. actions as “Zionist–American arrogance” and rallied resistance. These developments underscore that heavy-handed U.S. tactics in the Middle East – even if intended to weaken Tehran – have triggered regional backlash and eroded American credibility, echoing classic “blowback” from realpolitik maneuvers.

Impact on America’s Global Standing

America’s superpower status appears to be eroding in public perception, in part due to the long-term consequences of interventionist realpolitik. A 29-country Ipsos survey (April 2025 found that only 46% on average view the U.S. as a “positive influence” in world affairs – down sharply from 59% six months earlier. This slump was especially pronounced among traditional allies (e.g. Canada’s positive view of the U.S. fell from 52% to 19%). Notably, China is now rated more positively on global influence than America on average. These trends suggest that repeated realpolitik gambits – from Afghanistan and Iraq to covert coups and support for repressive regimes – have tarnished the U.S. image. Even at home, “war fatigue” has set in: after decades of costly conflicts, 51% of Americans say the U.S. does too much to solve world problems. In short, wielding overwhelming power without broader legitimacy is taking a toll: America remains militarily dominant, but its “soft power” and moral standing have declined as many around the world (and at home) question the wisdom of its Machiavellian tactics.

Comparing China, Russia and the U.S.

All three great powers employ realpolitik, but with different emphases. China traditionally projected a benign image, relying on economic influence and soft power; however, experts note a recent “Machiavellian turn” in Beijing’s strategy. China’s influence operations have grown more coercive and now “resemble… the ones employed by Moscow,” reflecting a belief (in Machiavelli’s words) that “it is better to be feared than loved”. Beijing now uses heavy-state tactics (cyber interference, debt diplomacy, United Front networks, etc.) akin to Soviet “active measures”. Russia, for its part, openly uses force and deception (e.g. annexing Crimea, proxy wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, disinformation campaigns) to achieve its aims, caring little for international opinion. The U.S., by contrast, generally pursues power through formal alliances, trade agreements and sanctions, though it has also backed coups and covert actions in Cold War style. In practice, however, all three powers share Machiavellian traits: all ultimately seek national advantage by any means necessary. For example, U.S. rhetoric often champions democracy, but its actions (covert wars, regime-change plots) have sometimes mirrored the cynical realpolitik of Moscow and Beijing. In recent years one analyst even noted a “Russification” of Chinese tactics – underscoring how the global superpowers are converging on similar power-politics, albeit cloaked in different language.

Conclusion: The Enduring Debate

In a complex global landscape, reflecting deeply on these choices is essential. Perhaps Machiavelli's greatest gift to modern foreign policy isn't the cold guidance of pragmatism itself but the enduring debate about the cost of such pragmatism—a conversation America, and the world, cannot afford to ignore.

The tension between moral idealism and strategic realism continues to define American foreign policy. As new challenges emerge in an increasingly interconnected world, policymakers must grapple with the same fundamental questions that have haunted American foreign relations for decades: When, if ever, do the ends justify the means? And what price are we willing to pay for security and influence in an uncertain world?

These questions have no easy answers, but engaging with them honestly is essential for any nation seeking to wield power responsibly in the international arena. The legacy of Machiavellian foreign policy serves as both a warning and a guide, reminding us that the choices we make in pursuit of national interests echo through history, shaping not only our strategic position but our moral standing in the world.