Noam Chomsky Has Been Proved Right about US foreign policy?

Introduction

Noam Chomsky’s critiques of U.S. foreign policy, long dismissed by establishment voices, have gained renewed validation in recent years as geopolitical events and policy decisions increasingly align with his decades-old warnings about imperialism, militarism, and the gap between rhetoric and reality.

Central to his argument is that U.S. actions abroad prioritize power consolidation and corporate interests over democratic ideals, often with catastrophic humanitarian consequences.

Let’s review analysis has been vindicated

Continuity of Imperial Policy Across Administrations

Chomsky has consistently argued that U.S. foreign policy remains rooted in imperialist logic regardless of political leadership. For example:

Biden vs. Trump

Despite Biden’s progressive domestic agenda, his foreign policy has maintained Trump-era confrontational stances toward China and Russia, including militarizing alliances in Asia and rejecting diplomatic solutions in Ukraine.

Afghanistan and Iraq

Historical cases like the U.S. rejection of Taliban surrender offers in 2001 (which could have avoided a 20-year war) and the fabricated pretexts for invading Iraq underscore Chomsky’s claim that “national interest” often masks destructive opportunism.

Rejection of Diplomacy in Ukraine

Chomsky criticized the U.S. and NATO’s “no negotiations” posture after Russia’s 2022 invasion, arguing it risks prolonging the war unnecessarily.

The Biden administration’s refusal to engage Moscow diplomatically—exemplified by the 2022 Ramstein meeting, where allies vowed to “weaken Russia severely”—mirrors what Chomsky called a “dead strategy” prioritizing geopolitical dominance over peace.

His warning that this approach could lead to a “war until capitulation” has gained traction as the conflict drags into 2025.

Containment of China as a Dominant Driver

Chomsky identifies U.S. efforts to thwart China’s rise as a core foreign policy objective, driven by fears of losing hegemony rather than genuine security concerns. The Biden administration’s expanded military alliances in Asia (e.g., AUKUS), tech embargoes, and labeling of China as an “existential threat” align with Chomsky’s critique of “operative lunacy” in treating development as aggression. He argues this risks a catastrophic conflict between nuclear powers.

Myth of American Idealism

In his 2024 book The Myth of American Idealism (co-authored with Nathan J. Robinson), Chomsky dismantles the notion that U.S. foreign policy is guided by moral principles. Case studies include:

Vietnam

Exposing how the U.S. sabotaged peace talks to maintain control over Southeast Asia, contrary to public narratives of defending democracy.

Latin America

Documenting support for dictatorships to suppress left-wing movements, as in Guatemala and Nicaragua.

Middle East

Demonstrating how oil interests and regional dominance—not human rights—shaped interventions in Iraq and Syria.

The book’s mainstream reception, including a Foreign Policy review acknowledging its “admirable” synthesis of Chomsky’s work, signals broader acceptance of his critiques.

Internal Decline and Self-Sabotage

Chomsky argues that the U.S. is “destroying itself from within” through inequality, political polarization, and militarized spending.

The 2024 election cycle, marked by threats to democracy and a fractured Congress unable to address climate or healthcare, reflects his warnings about domestic decay enabling foreign policy recklessness.

Criticisms and Counterarguments

While Chomsky’s framework has gained credence, critics like Noah Smith accuse him of oversimplifying motives as purely cynical, ignoring instances where U.S. actions align with global stability or humanitarian goals.

However, even detractors concede his central thesis—that power preservation trumps ideals—has been validated by events like the Ukraine war’s escalation and bipartisan China containment policies.

Conclusion

Chomsky’s analysis, once marginalized, now resonates in mainstream discourse as U.S. foreign policy confronts the consequences of its contradictions.

From Ukraine to the South China Sea, the gap between professed values and actions underscores his enduring relevance.

As Foreign Policy notes, his work remains vital for understanding “the costly and inhumane approach” that endangers both global stability and American democracy