Never Give an Inch

Imagine walking into the most secure briefing room in Washington, where satellite imagery reveals enemy movements in real-time and the fate of nations hangs on split-second decisions. Now picture that same room during one of the most turbulent periods in modern American history, where traditional diplomatic playbooks were being torn up and rewritten with each passing crisis. This was the reality for those who shaped American foreign policy from 2017 to 2021, a period that fundamentally altered how America engages with both allies and adversaries on the global stage.

The story that unfolds reveals how a small group of leaders confronted three defining challenges of our time: the rise of China as America's primary strategic competitor, the persistent threats from rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea, and the question of whether America could still achieve diplomatic breakthroughs in an increasingly fragmented world. Through secret negotiations in forbidden capitals, economic warfare that brought adversaries to their knees, and historic peace agreements that reshaped entire regions, these years demonstrated that American leadership could still move mountains when backed by clear principles and unwavering resolve. The lessons learned during this diplomatic revolution continue to shape global politics today, offering crucial insights into how nations compete, cooperate, and clash in our interconnected yet dangerous world.

The transformation of American foreign policy began not in the marble halls of the State Department, but in the shadowy corridors of the Central Intelligence Agency. When new leadership took control of America's premier intelligence service in early 2017, they inherited an institution that had become risk-averse and bureaucratic after years of political constraints and institutional timidity. The challenge was clear: restore the CIA's operational effectiveness while navigating the most politically charged environment in the agency's history.

The early months revealed the depth of resistance within the intelligence community to any departure from established orthodoxies. Career officials who had grown comfortable with incremental approaches and diplomatic niceties found themselves working for leaders who demanded bold action and measurable results. This cultural clash would define much of the period, as traditional bureaucratic processes gave way to what insiders called "entrepreneurial intelligence work" that prioritized American interests over institutional comfort.

The first major breakthrough came through an unconventional approach to hostage recovery that bypassed traditional diplomatic channels entirely. When three Americans were freed from North Korean captivity, it demonstrated that direct engagement backed by credible threats could achieve results that years of conventional diplomacy had not. This success established a template for future operations: identify clear objectives, take calculated risks, and maintain relentless focus on outcomes rather than process.

Perhaps most significantly, this period established the intellectual framework for confronting America's most serious adversaries. Intelligence briefings revealed the extent to which China, Iran, and North Korea had exploited American restraint and predictability to advance their own interests at America's expense. The recognition that accommodation had failed opened the door to more confrontational approaches that would define the next several years. The stage was set for a comprehensive reassessment of American foreign policy assumptions that had guided Washington for decades.

The concept of "maximum pressure" emerged as the defining characteristic of American policy toward rogue regimes, representing a complete rejection of the gradual escalation and diplomatic accommodation that had characterized previous administrations. This approach recognized that adversaries like Iran and North Korea had learned to exploit American patience and predictability, using negotiations as opportunities to buy time while continuing their malign activities.

The Iran campaign began with America's withdrawal from the nuclear agreement in May 2018, followed by the most comprehensive sanctions regime in history. The strategy targeted not just Iran's oil exports but the entire network of financial institutions, shipping companies, and front organizations that sustained the regime's regional terrorism. Within months, Iran's oil exports dropped from 2.5 million barrels per day to fewer than 200,000, cutting the regime's primary source of funding and forcing dramatic reductions in support for proxy forces across the Middle East.

The North Korea strategy employed a unique combination of unprecedented economic pressure and direct diplomatic engagement at the highest levels. While maintaining the toughest sanctions ever imposed on the regime, American leadership pursued face-to-face diplomacy that previous administrations had avoided. The Singapore summit in June 2018 represented a calculated gamble that personal diplomacy backed by credible threats could break decades of stalemate on the Korean Peninsula.

These parallel campaigns established new rules of engagement for dealing with authoritarian regimes. The message was clear: continued aggression would face escalating costs, while genuine cooperation would be rewarded. The approach required sustained commitment and the willingness to absorb criticism from allies who preferred accommodation to confrontation. Most importantly, it demonstrated that American economic power, properly applied, could be more effective than military force in constraining adversary behavior and creating space for diplomatic solutions.

The period from 2019 to 2020 witnessed a revolutionary transformation in Middle Eastern diplomacy that overturned decades of conventional wisdom about regional peace and stability. The breakthrough began with a fundamental reassessment of the region's power dynamics and threat perceptions, recognizing that Iran's aggressive behavior had created new opportunities for cooperation between former adversaries.

The key insight driving this diplomatic revolution was that pragmatic Arab leaders viewed Iran, not Israel, as their primary security threat. Countries like the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain faced direct challenges from Iranian missiles, proxy forces, and subversive activities that threatened their stability and prosperity. This shared threat perception created unprecedented opportunities for security cooperation and economic partnership that had been impossible under previous diplomatic frameworks.

The Abraham Accords represented the culmination of careful diplomatic orchestration across multiple capitals, involving some of the most sensitive negotiations in modern Middle Eastern history. Success required convincing Arab leaders that they could achieve normalization with Israel without sacrificing their Islamic credentials or domestic political standing. The agreements created new possibilities for technological cooperation, economic development, and security coordination that transformed the region's strategic landscape.

The broader implications extended far beyond bilateral relationships to encompass a new strategic architecture for the Middle East based on shared interests rather than shared grievances. The success demonstrated that American leadership could still achieve historic breakthroughs when it was willing to challenge failed assumptions and pursue innovative approaches. The agreements also established important precedents for how regional powers could cooperate against common threats while maintaining their distinct national identities and interests.

The final phase of this diplomatic era was defined by the full emergence of strategic competition with China as the central challenge of the twenty-first century. The COVID-19 pandemic served as a crucial inflection point, revealing the true nature of Chinese Communist Party governance and its willingness to sacrifice global health for political advantage and regime survival.

China's handling of the pandemic exposed the fundamental flaws in decades of American policy based on the assumption that economic engagement would gradually moderate Chinese behavior. The regime's cover-up of the virus's origins, suppression of whistleblowers, and manipulation of international organizations demonstrated that China under Xi Jinping was not a responsible stakeholder but an adversarial power willing to endanger the world to protect its own interests.

The American response evolved into a comprehensive strategy that addressed Chinese challenges across all domains of national power. This included not just trade and economic measures but efforts to counter Chinese influence operations in American universities, businesses, and local governments. The strategy recognized that China's approach to competition incorporated elements of economic warfare, technological espionage, and political subversion that required new defensive measures and institutional reforms.

The closing of the Chinese consulate in Houston in July 2020 represented both a symbolic and practical culmination of this new approach, demonstrating that America would no longer tolerate Chinese intelligence operations on American soil. Combined with comprehensive sanctions on Chinese officials responsible for human rights abuses in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, these actions signaled that the era of accommodation with China had definitively ended. The stage was set for a long-term strategic competition that would define international relations for generations to come.

The overarching philosophy that guided this transformation in American foreign policy centered on the principle that America's leaders have a primary obligation to American citizens and that this obligation sometimes requires making difficult decisions that prioritize American interests over international opinion. This approach represented a fundamental challenge to the post-Cold War consensus that had prioritized multilateral institutions and global governance over national sovereignty.

The implementation of "America First" principles required systematic reassessment of international agreements, alliance relationships, and institutional commitments that had accumulated over decades. The administration's withdrawal from various multilateral frameworks was not isolationist but reflected a preference for bilateral relationships and coalitions of the willing over bureaucratic international institutions that often constrained American decision-making without providing commensurate benefits.

The approach to border security and immigration policy reflected the same sovereignty-first principles, recognizing that a nation that cannot control its borders cannot maintain its democratic institutions or social cohesion. The implementation of policies like "Remain in Mexico" demonstrated that humanitarian concerns could be addressed while maintaining the rule of law and national sovereignty, establishing important precedents for how democratic nations could manage migration pressures.

Perhaps most importantly, this period established new standards for accountability in international relations, particularly regarding authoritarian regimes that had grown accustomed to American restraint in the face of provocations. The willingness to impose costs on bad actors, withdraw from disadvantageous agreements, and defend clear red lines restored American credibility with both allies and adversaries. The lesson was clear: effective diplomacy requires not just the capability to project power, but the demonstrated willingness to use it when core interests are at stake.

The central tension running through this transformative period was between accommodation and confrontation in dealing with authoritarian adversaries who had learned to exploit American restraint and predictability. For decades, American foreign policy had been guided by the assumption that engagement, economic integration, and diplomatic dialogue would gradually moderate the behavior of regimes in China, Iran, and North Korea. This era demonstrated conclusively that such assumptions were not only wrong but dangerous, as they allowed these regimes to grow stronger while continuing their malign activities.

The lessons from these years provide a clear framework for future American leadership: strength and clarity of purpose are more effective than accommodation and ambiguity in dealing with adversaries, success requires not just military and economic power but the willingness to use that power in defense of American interests, and American leadership remains essential for global stability and prosperity. The path forward requires maintaining the balance between strength and restraint, engagement and confrontation, that characterized the most successful elements of this diplomatic revolution. Most importantly, it requires leaders who understand that putting America first is not selfish nationalism but the foundation for effective global leadership in an increasingly dangerous world.