• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "authors": [
    "Ashley J. Tellis"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "South Asia",
    "India",
    "East Asia",
    "South Korea",
    "China",
    "Taiwan",
    "Japan",
    "Southeast Asia",
    "North Korea"
  ],
  "topics": []
}

Source: Getty

Other

Seeking Alliances and Partnerships: The Long Road to Confederationism in U.S. Grand Strategy

The United States has consistently rejected both isolationism and multilateralism as instruments for meeting its highest strategic ambitions, instead utilizing a dialectical relationship between confederationism and unilateralism to achieve hegemony.

Link Copied
By Ashley J. Tellis
Published on Dec 1, 2014

Source: National Bureau of Asian Research

This chapter reviews how the U.S. came to treat alliances and partnerships as essential instruments of its quest for hegemony over time, what tasks U.S. alliances performed in the past, and how their functions promise to mutate in the future.

Main Argument:

Despite frequent references to the U.S.’s early isolationist past, the country has consistently rejected both isolationism and multilateralism as instruments for meeting its highest strategic ambitions, instead utilizing a dialectical relationship between confederationism and unilateralism to achieve hegemony. U.S. power, no matter how formidable, benefits from the presence of partners, thanks to both their capacity to supplement American resources and their ability to bestow legitimacy to various U.S. policies. Even when these are not at issue, however, the company of confederates is undoubtedly valuable because it enhances the freedom that the U.S. enjoys to undertake unilateral actions whenever these are demanded by its global interests.

Policy Implications:

  • Confederationism, as a constituent element of U.S. grand strategy, is here to stay. As Washington focuses on national rejuvenation, it does not have the luxury of jettisoning its alliances because no matter what their infirmities currently may be, they are essential to preserving U.S. global hegemony.
    ​​​
  • In an environment characterized by both deepening interdependence and rising Chinese power, Washington’s quest for partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region is eased by the fact that a large number of nations therein value the U.S. and its protective presence because of the positive externalities accruing to them.
     
  • The cohesion between the U.S. and its many partners is likely to be greatest when U.S. power is at its most durable and resolute. The ultimate value of confederationism as an anchor of grand strategy, thus, hinges fundamentally on the vitality of U.S. power.

​Read the full chapter here.

This chapter is the introduction to Strategic Asia 1014-15: U.S. Alliances and Partnerships at the Center of Global Power . Read more about Strategic Asia, including information on how to order the complete book, here.

About the Author

Ashley J. Tellis

Former Senior Fellow

Ashley J. Tellis was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Recent Work

  • Paper
    Multipolar Dreams, Bipolar Realities: India’s Great Power Future

      Ashley J. Tellis

  • Commentary
    India Sees Opportunity in Trump’s Global Turbulence. That Could Backfire.

      Ashley J. Tellis

Ashley J. Tellis
Former Senior Fellow
North AmericaUnited StatesSouth AsiaIndiaEast AsiaSouth KoreaChinaTaiwanJapanSoutheast AsiaNorth Korea

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Lebanon Should Try to Place Hezbollah on the U.S.-Iran Table

    As talks begin between Washington and Tehran, Beirut has an opening to advance a regional plan for the party’s disarmament.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Board Up Donald Trump’s Failed Board of Peace

    What is behind Marco Rubio’s announcement that the body is now an international nongovernmental organization?

      • Zaha Hassan

      Zaha Hassan

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Looking Past the Wall on Palestine-Israel

    Policy discussion is ignoring that the Palestinian national project is hollowed out and apartheid is a present danger.

      Nathan J. Brown

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Israel’s Security Means Insecurity in the Middle East

    As negotiations with Iran and Lebanon continue, chaos is at the heart of the Netanyahu government’s calculations.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is Insane

    The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.

      Michael Young

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.