Reading Time: 19 minutes

By: Prof. Dr. Walid ‘Abd al-Hay.[1]
(Exclusively for al-Zaytouna Centre).


It is not possible to isolate the components of a society’s value system from one another and analyze their emergence and development independently. The value system is an intertwined fabric that evolves through a complex interplay of history, geography, and the mechanisms that shape the social structure in a broad sense. This evolution can be viewed from various perspectives: a Darwinian perspective at times, a Hegelian dialectical perspective at others, and sometimes from a Khaldunian perspective, considering the transmission of the value system across different societal units, individuals, groups and ethnic and religious diversities, etc.

Click here to download:
>> Academic Paper: The Centrality of Power in Managing US Political Negotiation … Prof. Dr. Walid ‘Abd al-Hay (15 pages, 4.3 MB)

However, every societal value system has a hierarchy consisting of higher, middle and subordinate values. According to the Freudian perspective, higher values influence public behavior through mental consciousness or are internalized by the public spirit.

In this study, we argue that power (both hard and soft) and pragmatism (the idea that something is right insofar as it is useful) are central to the US value system. This necessitates recognizing that the US negotiator or politician operates with these two values, both consciously and unconsciously. They interpret other values and subjects through a lens that aligns them with their higher values. This is something the official Arab negotiator often misses when negotiating with the US, as seen in the current rounds of negotiations over the repercussions of Operation al-Aqsa Flood.

In this study, we aim to prove our hypothesis that power is the highest value in the US value system. We will utilize multiple indicators to demonstrate that US political behavior, particularly in relation to the Arab region, is closely tied to this value system. When negotiating with Americans, it is crucial to consider this value system and avoid projecting our own values onto US behavior. Instead, US behavior should be understood through the lens of power and pragmatism in its cognitive framework.

First: The Origin of the Idea of Power in US Society

I argue that “most” settler-colonial societies[2] prioritize power as the highest value in their value system (e.g., US, Israel, apartheid-era South Africa, Rhodesia, France in Algeria). When we say the highest value, it means there are other values present in each society’s hierarchy, but the difference between societies lies not in the number of values but in the ranking of these values—high, middle and low. I will focus on the model of US society, which was established through force by a group of adventurers who crossed the Atlantic Ocean in the late fifteenth century, led by Columbus. They succeeded and then carried out a bloody liquidation of the indigenous American Indian tribes, with US forces conducting nearly 1,500 military attacks. This resulted in a significant decrease in the indigenous population, as shown in Table 1:[3]

Table 1: Population of Native Americans in the US

Year Number of Indian citizens % of the total population
1492 5 million 100
1800 600 thousand 10.15
1900 237 thousand 0.31

The success of successive waves of white immigrants from Europe, particularly in asserting their dominance over nature (crossing the Atlantic Ocean in sailboats) and controlling indigenous populations (such as American Indians), entrenched the concept of power in the value system. Force subsequently became a recurring theme in various aspects of American life, contributing to the expansion of the US threefold between 1783 and 1853.[4] Many US historians argue that the roots of violence and power in US culture are intertwined with the foundational mechanisms of US society, the conflicts between different settler cultural paradigms, and the North-South conflict during the Civil War, which elevated the value of power within the societal value system. The successful pursuit of the “Melting Pot” theory in US society by the dominant party reinforced the concept of power (noting the connotations of “melting pot” over multiculturalism), thereby deepening the internalization of power in the collective consciousness.[5] Consequently, a series of successes in wielding power has strengthened its centrality within the value system.

Second: The Reflection of Power in the US Public Sphere[6]

Academic studies agree on the crucial role of societal environment in shaping the levels and manifestations of violence. The broader culture and the prominence of power and violence within society’s value system represent central factors influencing public behavior, particularly political behavior. Therefore, the structure of the value system and its cultural manifestations in the mental and emotional framework of US society cannot be dissociated from the role of force in political conduct. This influence is evident in various cultural indicators within American society, as follows:

1. American Literature

Some American literary novels stand prominently in the American literary scene. Here are five examples that rank highly among those who follow American literary affairs:[7]

• To Kill a Mockingbird: Addresses themes of rape, murder and racism.

• The Great Gatsby: Revolves around emotional circumstances that culminate in murder.

• The Catcher in the Rye: The role of strength in the face of various sorrows.

• The Grapes of Wrath: Explores the necessity for strength in response to transformations in nature and the peasants’ class struggle.

• The Old Man and the Sea: A sailor’s struggle against whales and the assertion of power and will.

Ernest Hemingway’s assertion in The Old Man and the Sea that “A man can be destroyed, but not defeated” encapsulates a recurring theme in US thought, echoed similarly in William Faulkner’s novel The Sound and the Fury and reflected in musical rhythms and dance, etc. For instance, the renowned American song “This is America” addresses violence against black people.[8] The culture of violence and power can also be observed in American dance. However, instead of a dance form like ballet originating in US society, we predominantly find music and songs characterized by a rhythmic expression of power. This observation led an American writer to ponder, “Why, I started wondering, is so much of the discourse around club culture and dance music, both written and verbal, fixated on a very specific kind of lexis — the language of violence.”[9]

2. In Political Theory

Is it a coincidence that scholars of power in theorizing contemporary and modern international relations, from Arnold Niebuhr, who interpreted sin as “the consequence of man’s inclination to usurp the prerogatives of God,” to Hans Morgenthau, and all realist and neo-realist thinkers were either centered in the US or influenced by power thinkers outside the US?[10] A US senator’s study indicates that US foreign policies have contributed to the globalization of violence and the primacy of force in settling international conflicts through significant military interventions.[11] We will revisit this later in the study.

3. Social Relationships

We have the right to ask: Is it a coincidence that the highest crime rate in the industrialized world is in the US, which has a rate six times higher than Europe, despite having one of the highest average incomes in the world? Even if we categorize countries by the degree of social violence and crime, the US ranks among the highest.[12] Is this not an expression of the “general spirit of US society”?

The American scholar Alain Richard attributes all of this to what he calls “market culture.” He argues that this culture, which is at the core of the capitalist system, is “more dangerous than economic wars” because it fuels consumerism on the one hand and competition between producers on the other. This dynamic has substituted “moral principles by principles that had been established for the material success of the market system.”[13]

4. Soft Power: American Cinema

Content analysis is an accepted methodology for discerning trends in cinematic films that reflect the prevailing societal values. Several studies employing this methodology have revealed the following results:[14]

a. A study conducted on 390 US films spanning 1985–2010 (a quarter of a century) revealed that 90% of them included various scenes of physical violence.

b. In another content analysis study of 32 US films from 1970–2002, researchers compared the levels of violence and force across different manifestations (murder, weapons, knives, blood, etc.) and found:

• There has been a consistent increase in indicators of violence within the content of these films over time. This includes both the proportion and intensity of violence, indicating a continuous rise from decade to decade, which reinforces the concentration of power.

• The duration of violent scenes has increased when calculating their temporal presence in each period. Additionally, the duration and frequency of scenes depicting violence and blood have shown a linear increase.

c. The findings of the two earlier studies align with those of another study encompassing 2,094 popular movies spanning the years 1992– This study selected approximately 100 movies per year based on their highest ticket sales, indicating their popularity:

• Comparing the two decades under study reveals a rising prevalence of violent scenes in the selected movies.

• A direct correlation exists between the intensity of violence depicted in movie scenes and the percentage of ticket sales.

d. In another study on the reflection of the power theory in the literature of the German philosopher Nietzsche on US film industry, the following conclusions are reached:

• Nietzsche considers the logic of power as the ultimate reality pursued by the supreme man (Superman). American cowboy movies revolve around “the power” to dominate others, irrespective of whether this domination is just or not, aligning with Nietzsche’s idea.

• The study attempts to perpetuate the notion that the use of force is a natural law to overcome all difficulties, echoing the famous US writer Ernest Hemingway’s conclusion in his novel The Old Man and the Sea: that that “A man can be destroyed, but not defeated.”

When examining children’s cartoons, the issue becomes even clearer. The famous cartoon series Tom and Jerry represents the eternal struggle between brawn and brains, while Popeye the Sailor is a very clear representation of the idea of strength. This weak sailor, who is constantly beaten by Bluto, can only defend himself by consuming spinach, which he pours into his pipe. Spinach, rich in iron, symbolizes strength, and after consuming it, Popeye’s muscles twitch, perpetuating the association between strength and iron. Similarly, the cartoon Woody Woodpecker, in which a woodpecker digs into the trunk of a tree with his beak to build a nest, reinforces the idea that the industry of life requires pecking, i.e., strength. A study that analyzed the content of eight US children’s films out of 23 showed that the average number of violent scenes in these films is 1.7 minutes (less than two minutes). However, what is most striking and concerning is that most scenes of violence are committed by the “good characters,” not by the bad ones. This reveals an implicit glorification of power and violence that is implanted in the cognitive system of the child viewer.[15]

5. Sports

Some quantitative studies link the prominence of combat sports (especially wrestling and boxing) in the US to the centralization of power. The US often leads in the number of gold medals at the Olympics from 1904 to 2022,[16] and these sports enjoy wide popularity among the US public. This trend is an extension of the content found in US movies and TV series that widely promote a culture of power and violence, fostering a culture that includes slogans such as “The law of the fist and the law of the gun.”[17] The US has never reached the final of soccer, the most popular sport in the world, which relies more on technical skills than physical strength, unlike wrestling and boxing. An US writer and soccer expert explains that this disparity is due to “structural and cultural” issues.[18]

6. US Foreign Policy Behavior

The internal structure, value systems and historical emergence of a society play an indisputable role in shaping its foreign policy behavior. How does the structure of a settler society, which arose through violence and embraced it, reflect on the foreign policy behavior of the US? There is no doubt that former US President Donald Trump’s slogan “America First” is a reflection of the power vanity inherent in the collective subconscious of the US society. To illustrate this, we can examine the following indicators in US foreign policy behavior:

a. Somatic Violence: Foreign Military Intervention

It is important to highlight an issue that the US media often tries to camouflage: violence as an expression of power. Capitalist literature in general, and American literature in particular, tends to limit the concept of violence to “somatic violence,” which involves physical harm, especially in wars, while ignoring “structural violence.” Structural violence refers to the imposition of political, economic or social conditions that lead to hunger, disease, poverty, ignorance and death.[19] For instance, Israeli colonization represents structural violence, as does the looting of wealth by multinational corporations in the developing world. Economic blockades or sanctions imposed on some societies are also forms of structural violence, as are nuclear testing and environmental pollution driven by industrial production. One study found that US economic blockade policies lead to decreased life expectancy and increased disease rates. “Remarkably, US sanctions lead to four times as many deaths as a civil war.” Considering that the US has imposed blockades about 110 times on various countries over the past century, we can grasp the structural violence concept within the US political mindset and the influence of power culture.[20]

Specialized studies on the US use of somatic violence reveal that the US conducted 393 foreign military interventions from 1776 (the year of US independence) to 2023, as shown in the following table:[21]

Table 2: US Military Interventions in the World, 1776–2023

Period 1776-1945 1946-1991 1992-2023 Interventions in the Arab region
Total military interventions 207 114 72 77
Interventions’ annual rate 1.22 2.53 2.32 approx. 1

Studies of US intervention indicate that it practiced two types of intervention: muscle flexing to deter and intimidate, and direct intervention. However, the second type has gradually increased at the expense of the first. This is evidenced by the fact that between 1945 and 2023, the world witnessed a total of 248 wars, 186 of which were waged by the US, accounting for 75% of these wars.[22]

b. Structural Violence

The centrality of power in US foreign policy behavior becomes even more evident when comparing the US to the rest of the world in its use of economic power through blockades. Between 1914 and 2000, countries around the world imposed economic blockades 204 times, with the US responsible for 140 of these instances, accounting for 68.6% of the total.[23] This percentage mirrors the prevalence of US reliance on force.

What strengthens interventionism and reinforces power in a society’s value system is the level of success in military interventions. According to a US study examining the outcomes of 145 US military interventions between 1898 and 2016, the US significantly achieved its goals in 63% of these cases, clearly failed in 8%, and had relative success in 29%.[24] This study confirms that success in intervention correlates with an increased status of power, as it prompted the US to expand its “somatic and structural” interventionist ambitions both in number and scope.

Third: Remedy for the US Power Failure

It is difficult for researchers to identify a country throughout history that has not experienced military defeat in some form. However, none of these defeats have left as profound a “psychological complex” as that which emerged in the US following the Vietnam War. US literature coined the term “Vietnam Syndrome” to describe the fear of military intervention. According to a prominent US academic, the US psyche sought to resolve this dilemma by emphasizing the supreme value of successful power. Shortly after the conclusion of the Vietnam War, the US undertook a series of rapid interventions aimed at reaffirming the supreme value of power.[25] From 1975 to 1999, these interventions spanned ten countries: Iran (1980), Lebanon (1982–1984), Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), Panama (1989), the Persian Gulf (1990–present), Somalia (1992–1993), Haiti (1994), Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo (1999). Most of these military interventions were notably successful, which effectively erased the lingering effects of the Vietnam Syndrome. This series of sustained victories in the use of force restored US confidence in its power, thereby positioning the Vietnamese case as an anomaly.

The society that assassinated Martin Luther King Jr., the “black Baptist pastor” who espoused the dream of equality with his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, and who advocated for peace, human rights and love,[26] is paradoxically the same society that enthusiastically supported Muhammad Ali, the world’s most renowned boxer. While King promoted values that challenged and contradicted the US value system, Ali symbolized power through his fists, which aligned with the core of that same system.

Fourth: Detailed Framework for Managing Negotiations with the US

Many studies on negotiation management stress the significance of grasping the cultural values of the opposing party. This understanding aids in effectively engaging with them. This aspect focuses on several dimensions where cultural values intertwine with interests, aiming to maximize gains or minimize losses, as outlined below:[27]

1. Negotiating goals (contract or relationship?): In other words, is the goal of the negotiating team to achieve a specific contract with the other party, or to use this as a starting point for a relationship intended for future development?

2. Attitudes to the negotiating process (win/win or win/lose?): In other words, is the goal to achieve a decisive victory, or to share the outcomes to some extent and in proportion to the capabilities of the other side?

3. Personal styles (formal or informal?): The formal dimension of negotiation management encompasses various aspects such as linguistic expression (formal or informal address, whether using common names or honorific titles, etc.), attire (ranging from very formal to casual), mannerisms during greetings and conversation (strict or relaxed, etc.), and the transition from formal to informal dialogue.

4. Styles of communication (direct or indirect?): Is communication direct or indirect? Does the other party’s culture emphasize “body language” and its implications? How significant is symbolism in shaping each party’’s behavior towards the other?

5. Time sensitivity (high or low?): The focus on the temporal dimension in presenting topics, and its implications, varies significantly across cultures. For instance, some researchers highlight that “Germans are always punctual, Latins are habitually late, Japanese negotiate slowly, and Americans are quick to make a deal.” Raphael Patai asserts that Arab cultures exhibit a non-quantification of time, as evidenced by the limited variation in the past tense within the Arabic language.[28]

6. Emotionalism: High or Low?: In other words, understanding a culture’s tendency or lack thereof to display emotions, and knowing how to navigate and employ these traits when interacting with individuals from that culture.

7. Agreement Form: General or Specific?: Is the group seeking a specific agreement focused on a single, precisely defined point, or a general agreement that leaves room for negotiation? “Americans prefer detailed contracts,” while the “Chinese often prefer a contract in the form of general principles rather than detailed rules.”

8. Agreement Building Process: Bottom Up or Top Down?: Is the negotiation process first centered around strategic goals before delving into details, or does it start with specifics and move towards the broader picture?

9. Team Organization: One Leader or Group Consensus?: Is the negotiation team operating collectively and based on consensus, where decisions are made only after the entire team’s agreement, or is there a “leader” who has complete authority to decide all matters, rather than just serving as a formal figurehead? For example, some believe that Americans and Iranians tend to favor a leadership style, while the Chinese and Japanese prefer a consensus arrangement. Additionally, negotiations led by an individual leader are often shorter in duration compared to those conducted collectively.

10. Risk Taking (high or low?): “Research indicates that certain cultures are more risk averse than others. In deal making, the culture of the negotiators can affect the willingness of one side to take “risks” in a negotiation,” Americans are considered to be risk takers.

The same study surveyed persons of different nationalities and occupations from 12 countries, regarding their acceptance of 10 factors involved in the negotiation process. The responses from the American respondents were as follows:

Table 3: Preferences for Negotiation Management in US Values

 Factor Choice Acceptance %
1 Contract 54
2 Win-Win 71
3 Informal 83
4 Direct 95
5 High time sensitivity 85
6 High emotionalism 74
7 Specific agreement form 78
8 Bottom-up building agreement 53
9 One leader 63
10 High risk taking 78

Upon closer inspection, the table integrates two values: power and pragmatism. Power manifests in coercion when one party holds a clear advantage, while pragmatism prevails in situations where power dynamics are less defined.


In this study, we aimed to demonstrate the significance of power within the US value system and its role in shaping societal cognitive and value systems. For Arab or Palestinian negotiators, whether direct or indirect, it’s crucial to recognize that US negotiators typically respond to demands based on the strength backing those demands and the potential benefits derived from them. Therefore, the findings of this study underscore the following considerations:

1. The slogans of democracy, human rights and other concepts of US political propaganda do not hold significant weight in the US value system when making political decisions. Instead, they are often used as tools to camouflage and justify the motives behind the use of force. The utilization of democracy and human rights concepts can be seen as pragmatic measures to legitimize the use of violence.

2. The emergence of US society began with explorers navigating the Atlantic Ocean through sheer physical strength, followed by the imposition of control over local communities through firepower. Subsequently, the forced migration of large numbers of black Africans to serve as labor further solidified the prominence of force and elevated its status at the pinnacle of the US societal value scale.

3. The concept of power in US behavior resonates through American literature, cinema, sports, architecture and design, shaping the American consciousness.

4. The US leads significantly in the number of military interventions, across various forms and levels, compared to all other countries worldwide. This is partly due to the prevailing emphasis on power within the American mindset and the adherence to both old and new schools of realist perspectives.

5. Any political negotiation involving the US that fails to prioritize the use of power (both hard and soft), regardless of available resources, is destined to fail.

6. The proportion of somatic and structural violence in US foreign policy is comparable.


1. When dealing with the US negotiator, the Arab negotiator must realize in advance that negotiations are an accurate reflection of the field of conflict, as the loser in the field is the loser at the negotiating table, and changing the results at the negotiating table requires a change in the field.

2. The Arab negotiator should not underestimate any of the power sources at their disposal—whether economic, geostrategic, human, market, military, etc. Their negotiation strategy should focus on effectively leveraging these power sources, using them strategically (by granting or withholding), rather than relying solely on intellectual or theoretical arguments as in an academic debate.

[1] An expert in futures studies, a former professor in the Department of Political Science at Yarmouk University in Jordan and a holder of Ph.D. in Political Science from Cairo University. He is also a former member of the Board of Trustees of Al-Zaytoonah University of Jordan, Irbid National University, the National Center for Human Rights, the Board of Grievances and the Supreme Council of Media. He has authored 37 books, most of which are focused on future studies in both theoretical and practical terms, and published 120 research papers in peer-reviewed academic journals.
[2] To distinguish between terms such as settler, colonial, colonialism, and the centralization of power in each, see details in: Doerthe Rosenow, “The Violence of Settler Imperialism – and Why the Concept of Coloniality Cannot Grasp It,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), 20/10/2023.
[3] The American Genocide of the Indians—Historical Facts and Real Evidence, site of Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the Republic of Mozambique, 2/3/2022,
However, when examining the figures for the US, significant inconsistencies appear among various sources on this subject, with some citing current numbers around 8.7 million while others mention 3.4 million, and so forth. Further investigation into these discrepancies is warranted: Chris Gilligan, Facts and Figures: The Native American Population at a Glance, site of U.S. News, 22/11/2022,; U.S. Decennial Census Measurement of Race and Ethnicity Across the Decades: 1790–2020, site of United States Census Bureau, 3/8/2021,; and Fact Sheet: American Indians and Alaska Natives – By the Numbers, site of Administration for Native Americans (ANA),
[4] How Did the United States Become a Global Power?, site of Council on Foreign Relations, 14/2/2023,
[5] The term “Cultural Melting” emerged in the 1780s, following the War of Independence, when the notion of white supremacy became entrenched, reinforcing the centrality of power in achieving goals. American criminologist Barry Latzer rejects the mono-causal explanation of violence in US society, which attributes it solely to economic or social factors. Instead, he argues that the interplay of various components within US society and its structural formation constitutes the true roots of violence and power in US culture. See Barry Latzer, The Roots of Violent Crime in America: From the Gilded Age through the Great Depression (Louisiana State University Press, 2021), pp. ix-xvi and 319-324.
[6] Two US researchers review ten forms of violence in US society, with documented details of the following patterns: Economic violence, political violence, ethnic violence, religious violence, police violence (security forces violence), individual violence (street violence), assassinations, terrorism, political crime and morally justified violence. See details in Richard Hofstadter and Michael Wallace (editors), American Violence: A Documentary History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1970), passim.
[7] Based on expert opinions, sales figures, and the ratings from millions of readers, the 100 most important novels in American literature have been identified, with the top five highlighted. See 100 Best American Literature Books of All Time, site of Shortform,
[8] See detailed analysis of this song and its accompanying dance by Guthrie Ramsey in: An Expert’s Take on the Symbolism in Childish Gambino’s Viral ‘This Is America’ Video, site of TIME magazine, 7/5/2018,
[9] Killing It: Club Culture and the Language of Violence, site of VICE Digital, 4/9/2015,
[10] For an exploration of the theory of power in international relations and its most prominent modern and contemporary thinkers in the United States, see: James Dougherty and Robert Pfaltzgraff, Al-Nathariyyat al-Mutadaribah fi al-Alaqat al-Duwaliyyah, translated by Walid ‘Abd al-Hay (Conflicting Theories of International Relations) (Kuwait: Dar Kazma for Publishing, Translation and Distribution, 1985), pp. 61–89. The book reviews the ideas of Arnold Niebuhr, Hans Morgenthau, Nicholas Spykman, Friedrich Schumann, George Kennan, Arnold Wolfers, Henry Kissinger and others.
[11] Chris Murphy, The Violence Inside US: A brief History of an ongoing American Tragedy (New York: Random House, 2020), pp. 161-231.
[12] See details in United States, site of Crime Data Explorer, Federal Bureau of Investigation,; see also US crime data in UN reports, in site of United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,
[13] On detailing the roots of violence in US society see Alain J. Richard, Roots of Violence in the U. S. Culture: A Diagnosis Towards Healing (Nevada: Blue Dolphin Publishing, 2000), chap. 4.
[14] See details in Raymond Barrranco et. al., “Ticket Sales and Violent Content in Popular Movies,” Deviant Behavior Journal, vol. 41, no. 8, 2020, pp. 1010-1014; see also, Sawalmi al-Habib, “Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Power in the American Cinematic Imagination,” Afaq Sinemaiyyah Journal, Oran University, vol. 5, no. 1, 2018, pp. 15-18 (in Arabic); and see Amy Bleakley et. al., “Violent Film Characters’ Portrayal of Alcohol, Sex, and Tobacco-Related Behaviors,” Pediatrics Journal, American Academy of Pediatrics, vol. 133, no. 1, January 2014, pp. 71-76; and Elizabeth Monk Turner et. al., “A Content Analysis of Violence in American War Movies,” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, 2004, pp. 6-8.
[15] Mustafa Turkmen,“Violence in Animated Feature Films: Implications for Children,” Educational Process International Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, 2016, pp. 27-30.
[16] Countries with the most Olympic medals for boxing as of October 2022, site of Statista,
[17] Wojciech J. Cynarski and Artur Litwiniuk, “The Violence in Boxing,” Archives of Budo Journal, vol. 2, July 2006, p. 3.
[18] Why the US men will never win the World Cup (and that’s OK), The Guardian newspaper, 21/5/2018,
[19] Johan Galtung, “Violence, Peace and Peace Research,” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 6, no. 3, 1969, pp. 168-170.
[20] Francisco Rodríguez, “The Human Consequences of Economic Sanctions,” site of Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), 2023, p. 27.
On the effects of the blockade, see specific cases in: Michael Galant, “US Sanctions Policy: Frequently Asked Questions,” CEPR, 10/5/2024,
For insights on the repetition of blockade policies by the US, see Gary Clyde Hufbauer, “Sanctions-Happy USA,” Policy Briefs 98-4, site of Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), July 1998,
[21] The definitions of military intervention vary among international relations scholars, particularly regarding when an action is considered an intervention. Given the differing criteria, the reported number of interventions can vary significantly. To address this, I based the count of intervention cases on instances of direct military action against another state with the aim of influencing that state’s policy.
Sidita Kushi and Monica Duffy Toft, “Introducing the Military Intervention Project: A New- Dataset on US Military Interventions, 1776–2019,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 67, no. 4, 2022, pp. 752-779; A Chronology of U.S. Military Interventions From Vietnam to the Balkans, site of Public Broadcasting Service (PBS),; Heather Stephenson, U.S. Foreign Policy Increasingly Relies on Military Interventions, site of Tufts Now, 16/10/2023,; US Military and Clandestine Operations in Foreign Countries – 1798-Present, site of Global Policy Forum, December 2005,; and Zoltán Grossman, U.S. Military Interventions Since 1890: From Wounded Knee to Syria, site of The Evergreen State College,
[22] This figure for the number of wars differs slightly from the figures in the table due to the distinction between “war” and “military intervention,” see
Sonja Grimm et. al., The Handbook of Political, Social, and Economic Transformation (Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 564-72; A brief history of wars launched by U.S. after World War II, site of Xinhua, 2/9/2022,; and Zoltán Grossman, U.S. Military Interventions Since 1890: From Wounded Knee to Syria, site of The Evergreen State College,
[23] “Sanctions after the Cold War,” in Gary Clyde Hufbauer et. al., Economic Sanctions Reconsidered, 3rd edition (Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2009),
[24] Jennifer Kavanagh et. al., Characteristics of Successful Military Interventions (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2019), pp. 303-308 and xv (15).
[25] Gordon Adams says, “The Iraq invasion was part of an effort by policy-makers and the military to cure the nation of “Vietnam syndrome,” the idea that America was afraid to use military muscle to assert its will in the world.” See Gordon Adams, Has America’s ‘Vietnam syndrome’ ever gone away?, site of Responsible Statecraft, 25/3/2023,
[26] Read Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech in its entirety, site of NPR, 16/1/2023,
[27] Jeswald W. Salacuse, “Ten Ways that Culture Affects Negotiating Style: Some Survey Results,” Negotiation Journal, July 1998, pp. 221-225 and 226-238; and Raphael Patai, The Arab Mind (New York: Hatherleigh Press, 2002), pp. 69-77.
Also, Raphael Patai- The Arab Mind, Hatherleigh Press, New York,2002.pp. 69-77.
[28] This means that in Arabic, for example, there is no distinction between different temporal dimensions of the past tense as there is in English: He killed, He has killed, He had killed, etc. (according to Raphael Patai).

Click here to download:
>> Academic Paper: The Centrality of Power in Managing US Political Negotiation … Prof. Dr. Walid ‘Abd al-Hay (15 pages, 4.3 MB)

Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations, 1/7/2024

The opinions expressed in all the publications and studies are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of al-Zaytouna Centre.

Read More: