US National Security Strategy Document: An Ideological Text in the Mask of Security

TEHRAN (Defapress) - The National Security Strategy is an odd and controversial document, as an official document issued by the government. Many observers, both positive and negative, have noted its brevity and its plain, accessible language. At just 33 pages, it simply states “what America wants” and “how it will get it.”

Although it appears to be a policy brief, it is not a comprehensive national security strategy; it is more like the vision and mission section of a business plan, sparsely detailed but full of ambition.

As a policy-making document, it is full of unusual and controversial claims. For example, it is unusual for a strategy document to refer to a specific president so extensively, even describing his legacy as “the President of Peace,” a title that is self-proclaimed and cannot be considered a real legacy.

It is also unusual for the document to selectively examine its political relations and history, and to disparage a long-standing and important ally, Europe, based on unfounded claims of “loss of civilizational confidence” that have angered the region’s residents.

Analysis of the document’s content

The US National Security Strategy has stated principles that emphasize “a commitment to non-interventionism” and “the supremacy of nations.” These principles suggest that a less interventionist approach to international relations be adopted and that the sovereign rights of nations be respected.

However, this non-interventionism will only continue to the extent that countries align with US ideology or at least invest in the US economy. If these conditions are not met, the US will “oppose anti-democratic, elite-driven restrictions on fundamental freedoms in Europe, the English-speaking world, and the rest of the democratic world.”

It is not clear how this opposition will manifest itself, but the repeated references to military power and “peace through strength” suggest a hidden threat. Perhaps this opposition is seen in the deadly extrajudicial raids on Venezuelan drug traffickers in Caribbean waters.

Furthermore, the document explicitly rejects “the failed concept of global domination for itself” and others, but at the same time declares that the United States must maintain its position as “the strongest economy, the most advanced technologies, and the most powerful military in the world” to make “peace through strength” a vital project and to maintain and expand its dominance. Despite the talk of non-intervention and non-domination, the stated goal is to create “peace agreements” to “strengthen American global influence, align countries and regions with our interests, and open new markets.”

These goals reflect a deep focus on economic issues. The document consistently emphasizes opening up global markets, expanding U.S. access to raw materials and minerals, and prioritizing investment in U.S. defense and other products and industries. Perhaps it is better to read this strategy not as a political security strategy but as a strategy for expanding America’s share of the total addressable market (TAM) using a carrot-and-stick policy.

At the heart of the document is money and the ability to exploit investments and dependencies on American products to create a monopoly on U.S. technologies and industries, benefiting private actors and investors. Any positive security impact is welcome but secondary. Unlike a business plan or a private sector disruption strategy, the United States can force its way into desirable positions by threatening intervention, including military force.

The document’s contradictions

One of the document’s most striking features is its contradictory statements. The document’s stated principles emphasize nonintervention and respect for sovereignty, but these principles apply only to countries that align with U.S. interests. If a country resists, the United States is prepared to counter, which could take the form of a military threat. This contradiction suggests a dual approach: freedom for allies, but pressure on opponents. Moreover, the rejection of global domination is made while the stated goal is to maintain economic and military dominance.

This contradiction turns the document into an ideological text that pursues commercial goals under the guise of security. The United States wants to be the “first choice” and discourage cooperation with others. They want the world to accept that “American goods, services, and technologies are much better in the long run.” This is, in essence, a strategy to expand American trade and increase the total market share available to American companies.

Ambassadors and government employees are hired as salespeople. The text of the document makes this clear: “All of our embassies should be aware of major business opportunities, especially major government contracts, in their countries. Every U.S. government official who interacts with these countries should understand that part of their job is to help American companies compete and succeed.”

The strategy seeks to disrupt China’s global economic influence and replace its soft power with expanded American trade relations in Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. While it is not yet clear how this will be done, the document makes it clear that this lucrative opportunity must be wrested from China.

The United States and its allies have yet to develop a joint plan for the so-called “global South,” but they have enormous resources. Europe, Japan, South Korea, and others have net foreign assets of $7 trillion. International financial institutions, including development banks, have combined assets of £1.5 trillion. The administration is committed to using its leadership position to implement reforms that serve American interests.

Economic and ideological focus

This strategy sees the entire world and its governments as an addressable market. In the business environment, the total achievable market represents the total revenue opportunity in a sector, industry, or market, that is, if a business could capture close to 100 percent of it. Parts of the strategy resemble a market-sizing exercise to capture a larger share of global government contracts than U.S. companies currently do.

In normal business practice, a company can increase its total achievable market by finding new markets, expanding its product range, or adjusting its pricing strategy. In the world of venture capital, expanding the total achievable market requires more drastic measures and usually involves a disruption strategy to open up markets and shape future needs.

This means locking countries into a dependency on U.S. technology that will be difficult to escape. With this perspective, we can better understand the hostile position not only against China but also against Europe, which is resisting the unconditional acceptance of American technology products.

One argument is that requiring NATO members to quickly reach the 5 percent GDP target would serve American goals of selling more defense products to European countries, and that this move might significantly undermine European countries’ internal security.

But with Europe’s strong and informed regulatory frameworks, there is friction in being able to expand business at the normal pace of America. This is a thorn in the side of American business, so the strategy insists on an emphatic demand that Europe abandon its “failed focus on regulatory strangulation.”

The explicit demand is that Europe open its markets to American goods and services and ensure fair treatment of American workers and businesses. To facilitate this, the strategy issues a warning: Europe must correct its current course, i.e., align its values ​​with the civilizational ideals of the current US administration, or expect intervention.

The document gives the Middle East more freedom and will no longer be blamed by the US for its historical traditions and forms of governance. This may be linked to the deepening of US investment and trade relations with various Gulf states, which ultimately prioritize American interests.

Impact on international relations

Perhaps it is time to take more seriously the ideologies of those close to the Trump administration 2.0. These ideologies essentially believe that countries should be run like tech startups: everything should be based on fair trade and direct profits, and it is okay if this approach leads to the disruption of the global order, the collapse of historical alliances, or the forsaking of new profitable opportunities.

This view naturally spills over into the realm of foreign policy. The gist of the US national security strategy is that we seek friendly relations with other countries, but only so long as these relations facilitate investment in the US economy and its dominance of global markets; otherwise, expect US military intervention.

This approach is a form of political bullying that has become a hallmark of contemporary US foreign policy in recent years. In a recent speech to leaders of the defence industry, Trump’s Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, introduced the new defence procurement and acquisition strategy in the same spirit: “Be prepared to do things differently; move faster and invest more… or we may have to force you to do so.” He went on to emphasize: “We are capitalists.”

The new US National Security Strategy bears all the hallmarks of a radical capitalist manifesto, with a strong focus on achieving market dominance, coupled with a blatant disregard for real political communities, shared histories, and non-economic relationships. It implicitly leaves ample room for the use of violence to advance US interests. The sooner the international community understands and adapts to this fundamental shift in US policy, the better.

Ultimately, the US National Security Strategy is more of a business plan for expanding economic influence than a real security plan. By focusing on the global market, hidden threats, and radical capitalist ideology, it transforms international relations into a competitive marketplace. Europe and China are seen as competitors, while other regions, such as the Middle East, are afforded greater freedom to invest. This approach could lead to further tensions and requires a coordinated response from the international community.