“If we kill all our enemies on the other side of the sea, will we finally be free?”
– Eren Yeager (Attack On Titan, Season 3, Episode 22: “The Other Side Of The Wall”)
The disconcerting parallel between Attack on Titan’s (AOT) Eren Yeager and United States (US) foreign policymakers lies in their shared use of preemptive violence—whether to defend against annihilation or to maintain global dominance, both act in the name of survival.
At the heart of AOT’s gripping narrative is Eren Yeager, a young man who transforms from a freedom fighter into a genocidal anti-hero. His journey serves as an acute allegory for US foreign policy in today’s multipolar world—where power is no longer dominated by one or two superpowers but is instead distributed among several influential nations. In this new global order, the US faces a more geopolitically complex and competitive landscape, much like Eren’s evolving struggle to safeguard his homeland.
Eren begins his mission with an honorable goal: to protect his country, Paradis Island, from the Titans—giant humanoid monsters that have ravaged humanity. Over time, however, Eren discovers that the Titans are not the true threat. Instead, they are the creation of a global empire called Marley, which seeks to annihilate Paradis and its people, the Eldians. Consequently, Eren grapples with the growing realization that the world will never allow his people to live in peace. His vision of freedom narrows into a fatalistic belief: the only way to ensure his people’s survival is by preemptively destroying his enemies. As the wielder of the Founding Titan’s power, Eren chooses to initiate the Rumbling. This catastrophic plan unleashes legions of titans upon the world, wiping out any nation that could one day threaten the sovereignty of Paradis.
From Washington D.C. to Paradis
Much like Eren’s drastic decision to launch the Rumbling, the US has turned to extreme measures when confronted with existential threats—real or perceived. Eren’s action reflects a form of extreme strategic retrenchment, a desperate move by an actor who feels isolated and existentially threatened. This mirrors the position the US has often found itself in, especially in light of its own declining relative power.
This dilemma, however, is not new for the US. Throughout the Cold War, America sponsored coups, purges, and interventions in countries where the spread of communism was perceived as an existential threat. The “Jakarta Method”—a US-backed campaign of mass killings in Indonesia in 1965, which saw over 500,000 and one million leftists and suspected communists slaughtered. The Jakarta Method served as a model for similar anti-communist campaigns across the Global South in the latter half of the 20th century, as the US took drastic preemptive actions to neutralize ideological threats before they could gain a foothold.
Much like Eren’s belief that the world will destroy his homeland unless he acts first, the US rationalized its interventions as necessary to protect global stability and its interests. By preemptively eliminating perceived threats, the US achieved unrivaled global hegemony after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union.
The same logic persisted into the 21st century, where the US, building on its Cold War tactics, adopted similarly aggressive strategies under the banner of counterterrorism. Following the 9/11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration launched the “Global War on Terror,” an open-ended campaign that introduced the concept of preventive war. Preventive war—like Eren’s Rumbling—is not a response to an immediate threat, but rather a preemptive strike against potential future dangers. In this case, the US acted to prevent terrorist organizations and rogue states from acquiring weapons of mass destruction (WMD), even if such threats were speculative.
This preventive approach culminated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a war justified by the belief that Iraq could one day develop WMD, despite the lack of concrete evidence of an immediate threat. This marked a significant departure from traditional US foreign policy, which had historically focused on managing state actors. Instead, the US shifted its strategic doctrine toward combating non-state threats, particularly terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda. Owing to this development, officially declaring such entities as primary targets disrupted established norms in international diplomacy, which blurred the lines between war, policing, and intelligence operations. By treating non-state actors with the same severity as nation-states, the US set a precedent that altered the international power balance, creating friction with global powers that questioned the legitimacy of interventions based on preemptive threats.
This shift also realigned alliances, with many countries in the Global South distancing themselves from Washington. Countries like Russia and China leveraged this reorientation to expand their influence by positioning themselves as counterweights to US interference. Meanwhile, the immense financial and human cost of these operations—estimated at over $8 trillion and 900,000 lives—strained US resources and global standing, indirectly weakening its traditional role as the unchallenged leader in international diplomacy. Two decades after the 9/11 attacks, the implications of this shift continue to reverberate, reshaping the nature of international conflict. The long-term consequences of these preemptive strategies have raised critical questions about whether such extreme measures can ensure lasting security or whether they, instead, lay the groundwork for future instability and conflict.
In much the same way, Eren’s Rumbling serves as a form of preventive maneuver intended to neutralize future threats before they can materialize. Just as the US sought to protect its global position through aggressive interventions, Eren believes that preemptive violence is necessary for survival. However, as with the US’s counterterrorism campaigns, the human costs of Eren’s decision are cataclysmic. Both cases highlight a common predicament: whether the pursuit of security through preemptive violence creates lasting peace, or whether it perpetuates cycles of destruction and alienation. As history shows—and as fiction illustrates—extreme violence in the name of preventing future threats often leads to fatal consequences that undermine the very security it seeks to preserve.
A New Cold War?
Today, US foreign policy is shaped largely by its rivalry with China, which has become one of the defining geopolitical challenges of the 21st century. The US increasingly views China as the principal threat to its global leadership, much as Marley was seen as the primary threat to Paradis in AOT. The ongoing Sino-American contestation, characterized by competition in trade, technology, and military influence, risks spiraling into a multifaceted global conflict that could dramatically reshape international relations. China’s economic clout, driven by initiatives like the Belt and Road, has steadily expanded its influence across Asia, Africa, and Europe, creating new spheres of dependence and opportunity for developing nations. In response, the US has launched counter-efforts such as the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) and the “Build Back Better World” (B3W) initiative, while deploying disinformation campaigns to curtail Beijing’s rise.
However, framing the relationship between the US and China purely as a power struggle oversimplifies the dynamics of the contemporary multipolar order. Other powers—including the European Union (EU), India, Russia, and even smaller regional players—are asserting its influence, shaping the contours of this rivalry. For instance, India, while sharing strategic concerns about China’s regional ambitions—particularly regarding the border disputes and maritime issues in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR)—continues to maintain substantial economic ties with Beijing. Likewise, countries across Southeast Asia often avoid choosing between the two powers, opting instead to leverage both US security guarantees and Chinese investment opportunities. This balancing act demonstrates that many nations have the agency to shape the US-China conflict in ways that suit their national interests.
Taking this into account, the multipolar context significantly alters the trajectory of the US-China rivalry. Unlike the Cold War, where global power was concentrated in a bipolar system, today’s “new Cold War” is more diffused. The presence of multiple influential actors complicates efforts by either the US or China to dominate the global stage outright. Understanding this reality is essential for both powers. The US, in particular, must recognize that forcing countries to choose sides could prove counterproductive. A heavy-handed approach that pressures nations to distance themselves from China risks driving those same countries further into Beijing’s orbit, as evidenced by some African nations.
Rather than viewing the world through a dualistic lens, the US should adopt a more nuanced approach, forging interest-based partnerships that respect the autonomy of other nations. Such an approach would require the US to engage more flexibly, accepting that many countries will continue to interact with both powers to their benefit. In this sense, US strategy should focus on strengthening alliances and building multilateral institutions that can act as buffers in a more unpredictable international order.
The US-China rivalry, therefore, cannot be effectively managed by unilateral strategies or direct confrontations alone. Instead, navigating this rivalry in a multipolar world requires diplomatic finesse, strategic patience, and a deep understanding of the interconnected global landscape. Much like Eren, the US faces an intricate quandary: how to protect its interests and leadership without overextending itself or inadvertently triggering a broader global conflict. In the long run, cooperation with other global powers on shared concerns—such as climate change, cyber security, and economic stability—may offer a more sustainable path than relying solely on competitive escalation.
The Costs of Preemptive Power in a Multipolar World
The lessons from both Eren’s downfall and US foreign policy accentuate a critical admonition about the zero-sum logic and use of preemptive force. While both Eren and the US have sought to secure their survival through extreme measures, the long-term consequences of such strategies are often fraught with peril. In today’s increasingly complex global landscape, where power is distributed across multiple influential actors, the risks of unilateral action are magnified. The US must recognize that maintaining its leadership cannot be achieved through dominance or coercion alone.
Subsequently, the feasible path forward lies in level-headed adaptability, diplomacy, and collaboration. The US must engage constructively with other global powers, understanding that shared global challenges—like climate change, economic stability, and cybersecurity—require collective solutions. Just as Eren’s miscalculation led to greater devastation, the pursuit of preemptive stratagems risks undermining the very stability it seeks to protect. In the long run, building alliances, respecting the sovereignty of nations, and focusing on multilateralism may prove to be the only sustainable way to navigate the peculiarities of this burgeoning multipolar world.
Featured Image Source: The Cinemaholic © 2021
Comments are closed.