India’s U.S. dilemma as ties turn taxing, benefits shrink

Published 16 June 2026 · india

Countries that partnered with the United States over the decades subordinated their strategic autonomy, and even national sovereignty, for the benefits that came with it

Countries that partnered with the United States over the decades subordinated their strategic autonomy, and even national sovereignty, for the benefits that came with it. In its America First era under Donald J. Trump, partners of the U.S. are being asked to bend according to U.S. priorities, but not necessarily with any accompanying benefits. For India, this approach manifested in two developments in quick succession in recent days: the U.S. extended export controls on AI technologies, which will only expand further in the coming days; and it made clear that it cared little for Indian concerns while waging its arbitrary war on Iran along with Israel. And this came after a series of American moves that has had an impact on India’s oil imports. Countries that signed up at various levels of cooperation with the U.S. got, in return for compromising their strategic autonomy, a security umbrella — nuclear, in the case of Japan, South Korea, and NATO partners; access to capital, technology, and global markets; and U.S. protection in international bodies. For instance, Japan and Germany forfeited an independent military posture and built two of the world’s largest economies within the American framework. South Korea emerged from war to become a technology and manufacturing power under the same umbrella. The Gulf Cooperation Council states accepted U.S. forces on their soil in exchange for security guarantees. Supremacy and dominance There was an ideological and moral argument that the U.S. held in support of its own dominant role in world affairs, that it helped promote a combination of electoral democracy and market economics, self-certified by the U.S. as the superior and universally applicable model for human organisation.

The democracy and free market argument has always been weak, as U.S. alliances with GCC countries and Pakistan show. The U.S. leadership of the global commons — freedom of navigation, the international financial system, non-proliferation regimes, pandemic management — advanced American interests but also created stability in the international order. The moral claims of the market-democracy duet have weakened, and even within the U.S. and all advanced economies, there is a widening gap between what the model promised and what it delivered. America First formally abandoned that ideological facade and announced to the world that all that mattered to the U.S. was its own supremacy and dominance. Subordination without gains The isolationism associated with America First politics is valid only in its withdrawal from international commitments — for instance in tackling global crises such as pandemics or climate change. Its more consequential manifestation is the assertion of American dominance without hegemony. The statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio dismissing Indian concerns over the killing of Indian seafarers in the Strait of Hormuz is a stark demonstration of this approach. Opponents of India’s strategic autonomy always pointed to the benefits of coming under the U.S. umbrella, arguing that the gains would justify even a significant surrender of autonomy. America First has removed the fig leaf of such claims and states it upfront: demanding subordination without any commensurate advantage. Even the fable of the American security umbrella, for countries that counted on it, is now turning not merely useless but counterproductive, as it is for the Gulf countries.