US Faces Imperial Trap That Felled British Empire

Over the past 15 years, three current and former US presidents believed America had become too deeply entangled in attempts to reshape Middle Eastern societies. They considered rebuilding America's industrial base and countering a rising China far more urgent priorities. Yet the US has once again plunged into a war to reshape the Middle East, and as with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, this conflict is unlikely to produce the outcomes its supporters desire.

Why does this pattern keep repeating? To understand the present, we must examine the case of Britain—the only nation in modern history to wield influence comparable to America's. In the early 20th century, Britain was the world's sole superpower. In 1870, the British Empire accounted for roughly 25% of global GDP—nearly identical to America's share today—and London stood as the world's financial center. Britain thwarted Napoleon's ambitions to dominate continental Europe, then blocked Russia's expansion into the Balkans during the Crimean War. Managing an "empire on which the sun never set," Britain set the direction of international affairs much as America does today. Britain responded to local instability, rogue regimes, and power vacuums across Asia and Africa, deploying troops and exercising control in Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, and Jordan. Consequently, Britain became consumed by an endless series of regional crises on the global periphery, paying an enormous price. In 1920, Britain deployed approximately 100,000 British and Indian troops to suppress the Iraqi rebellion, pouring tens of millions of pounds from the national treasury. The cost of the Iraq expedition nearly equaled Britain's entire annual education budget at the time.

British leaders engaged in heated debates over Mesopotamian strategy while fundamentally overlooking the genuine economic and technological challenges they faced. While Britain waged wars against tribes in the Middle East and Africa, across the Atlantic, the United States was quietly building the most advanced industrial economy in world history. After World War I, defeated Germany focused on rebuilding its shattered industrial base and cultivating a highly mechanized military. Meanwhile, Britain—distracted by a chaotic periphery—was systematically overtaken by emerging powers in core sectors, ultimately surrendering its position as the world's preeminent power.

Today, America is once again succumbing to imperial temptation. In responding to Middle Eastern crises, the US believes its approach follows coherent political, military, and moral logic. But ultimately, grand strategy is about prioritizing the use of limited resources. America's political capital, capabilities, military strength, and economic resilience are not infinite. Every airstrike on Iran, every drone-interception missile fired over the Persian Gulf, every moment administration officials spend debating Iran's political succession represents energy squandered—energy that should be devoted to the defining challenges of the 21st century.

America's most important and indispensable role is to firmly anchor the global system's core against the revisionist ambitions of China and Russia. China, without setting foot in the Middle Eastern quagmire, is concentrating its investments on key technologies that will determine the future global balance of power: artificial intelligence, quantum computing, solar and wind power, batteries, and robotics. Russia continues its attempts to destabilize European security and undermine Western democratic systems through hybrid political-military warfare that is difficult to detect and even harder to counter. China and Russia are challenging the fundamental framework of the US-led world order itself. Yet at this very moment, America intends to pour vast blood and resources into maintaining security in the Middle East—even directly selecting certain countries' leaders.

Historically, great powers often succumb to the temptation of small wars because they are captivated by the illusion that such conflicts will deliver swift political and moral victories. Unfortunately, these tactical successes rarely translate into strategic gains; more often, they become the first steps toward prolonged attrition. Even if intervention in Iran succeeds, America must remain deeply involved in that nation's fate. Is that truly where the US can most efficiently invest its time and energy over the next decade? The lesson from Britain's example is clear: Great powers typically do not fall to foreign invasion—they collapse because they exhaust themselves on the periphery while neglecting the core.