The United States has a long history of promoting values like human rights; environmental conservation; nuclear non-proliferation; and democratic values i.e. liberty, minority rights, sovereignty, etc. The USA advocates these values on the global stage and urges other states to uphold the same principles. It often calls out other states like China for disregarding human rights and causing environmental damage. The US officials validate their attempts to regime changes and military interventions, by saying those were efforts to propagate universal human rights and democratic values. However, the US did not take a stronger stance when its ally i.e. Israel disregarded human rights values and violated international law. Oftentimes, the US has to make a trade-off and choose either its long-propagated values or realpolitik (strategic interests). The realpolitik approach in foreign policy is when countries prefer strategic interests over moral values. States take a pragmatic approach to gain geo-political advantage irrespective of ethical considerations. Whenever this clash happens, the US often chooses its strategic interests over values. During the Cold War, American priorities shifted to defeat the USSR by all means. It supported many dictators, murderers, and right-wing leaders, as long as they sided with the US against communism. In Chile, Salvador Allende, a democratically elected socialist, was overthrown by a coup sponsored by the US in 1973. The new military dictator, Augusto Pinochet, had a record of human rights abuse. The US, despite its pro-democracy stance, maintained close relations with Pakistani dictators because they served the US interests. The US even normalized relations with the communist China. President Nixon hoped that improved relations with China would benefit the US against the USSR. In the Vietnam War, the Nixon administration wanted to either win the war or end it in a way that the American public accepted it. So they took an extreme step to cut supplies of North Vietnamese and they carpet bombed neighboring Cambodia. This attack was disproportionate and indiscriminate inflicting mass civilian casualties. America dropped 2.7 million tons of bombs on Cambodia causing huge environmental damage. The instability in Cambodia gave rise to radical communist groups i.e. Khmer Rouge which eventually conducted the Cambodian genocide. America showed no concern for the humanitarian loss and environmental damage in the attempt to win the war. Again in the 1980s, US-supported right-wing military dictators to counter leftist influence in central Africa, particularly Nicaragua, and El Salvador. The biggest controversy in the period was the Iran-Contra affair, in which the US covertly supplied arms to Iran, intending to free US prisoners held in Lebanon. The US used that money to fund Contras (rebels opposing the socialist government) in Nicaragua. This was a violation of US policy, as the US considered Iran a terrorist-sponsoring state. The US Congress has also prohibited direct military aid to Contras because of their brutal military tactics and human rights abuses in the Nicaraguan civil war. The whole Iran-Contra affair was done covertly which questioned the transparency of Reagan’s administration. It contradicted the US government’s public stance of boycotting terrorist-sponsoring states and its commitments to human rights and democracy. In the Iran-Iraq war, there was strong evidence that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. The US still gave tacit support to dictator Saddam Hussain in this war to contain the revolutionary forces in Iran. The US has a controversial role in many other Middle-Eastern countries e.g. supporting Saudi Arabia despite its human rights violations and role in Yemen. These are just some instances where America’s actions contradicted it’s values of democracy, human rights, environmental conservation, nuclear non-proliferation etc. The realpolitik approach of the US is evident in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Israel has reportedly killed 35,000 Palestinians, since the Hamas attack on October 7. South Africa filed a genocide case against Israel at ICJ. This case is one of the five genocide cases ICJ has ever handled. ICJ considering this case for further hearing itself speaks of the gravity of the crimes. Despite the huge backlash, the US still maintains its unwavering support for Israel. The whole Iran-Contra affair contradicted the US government’s commitment to human rights and democracy. This realpolitik approach explains why the US supports Israel. Historically, the US did support a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The US has raised concerns about the continued expansion of settlements issue in Israel, calling it a hindrance to peace. But its approach leans more in favor of Israel. The US avoids officially calling settlements issue as “illegal” to avoid sanctions on Israel. It has always vetoed resolutions against Israel. The Trump administration recognized Israel’s authority over Jerusalem. Palestinian Authority (PA) protested the pro-Israel stance of the Trump administration. PA has sought full membership for Palestine since 2011, but the US vetoed it in the Security Council. However, the UN General Assembly granted the non-member observer status to Palestine in 2012. Israel has proved itself a reliable ally for the US when it defeated a coalition of Arab states multiple times. Also, Israel watched over Syria, which had prominent Soviet influence. It kept a check on violent movements in neighboring Jordan, Lebanon, and Palestine. Israel’s history is filled with wars and small-scale conflicts, these provide a battlefield for the US to test US arms. Israel served as a conduit where the US couldn’t provide direct military aid like South Africa during apartheid, the Islamic Republic in Iran, the military junta in Guatemala, and the Nicaraguan Contras. America has a large population that favors pro-Israel policies. Also, a notable contribution to American election campaigns comes from various groups, some among them favor Israel. The US protects its ally because of Israel’s strategic importance. It continues to aid Israel with military support, economic assistance, and diplomatic protection. The US has been providing billions of dollars to Israel annually. Both countries share regular intelligence. Israel’s intelligence has assisted the US in covert operations. International relations are multi-faceted and complex like that. For the US, these interests matter more than any ethical considerations. Pakistani public opinion shows elements of idealism, wanting a foreign policy driven by ideology. We expect the US and our country to maintain their moral standings. But the reality of international realities is far less romantic. In Pakistan, the public has often criticized the government for taking a realpolitik approach. Our people joins in rallies when the agenda is to push government for values-driven or religion-centric foreign policy. Even the world super-power never has consistently opted for ideologically driven foreign policy. We need to understand that in this world driven by realpolitik, prioritizing ideology while oblivious of the pragmatic reality, can have unfavorable consequences. Acknowledging the prevalence of realpolitik is essential. International relations are complex, and nations should figure out a balance between ideological principles and strategic interests. The writer is an intern at the Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad. She can be reached at saleha.4816@gmail.com