America’s War Chessboard: Exposing Its Economic Manipulation and Hegemonic Calculations

Introduction

The United States has never been a mere bystander in global wars and conflicts; rather, it wields economic tools as a covert chessboard, orchestrating events to maximize its trade advantages, geopolitical control, and enduring hegemony. This strategy alternates between fueling conflicts through resource supplies and stifling rivals with embargoes and tariffs, ensuring American dominance at the expense of allies and adversaries alike. From pre-World War II oil exports to Japan, through the Cold War’s Marshall Plan, to the current exploitation of the Ukraine War for energy profits and the coerced relocation of Taiwan’s TSMC, the U.S. has consistently used economic leverage to shape war outcomes for its benefit. These maneuvers not only exacerbate global instability but also impose heavy costs on allies, from economic stagnation to loss of sovereignty. This article delves into historical and contemporary cases to expose how the U.S. manipulates resources, trade, and crises in Asia, Central Asia, and Europe, revealing the calculated self-interest behind its hegemonic chess game and its profound impact on global stability.

Historical Manipulation: Pre-WWII Resource Supplies to Japan and the Embargo Pivot

In the 1930s, amid the Great Depression’s economic devastation, the U.S. supplied Japan with vast quantities of strategic resources, notably oil and steel, which directly fueled Japan’s aggressive expansion into China. U.S. Commerce Department records show that from 1931 to 1937, America provided over 80% of Japan’s oil needs, powering its military campaigns like the Mukden Incident (1931, a staged pretext for invading Manchuria) and the Marco Polo Bridge Incident (1937, sparking full-scale war with China).1 Companies like Standard Oil secured lucrative contracts, while the Hoover and early Roosevelt administrations permitted these exports under a veneer of neutrality, prioritizing domestic economic recovery over Asian stability.3 This operation indirectly bankrolled Japan’s militarism, allowing the U.S. to profit from war without direct involvement, effectively turning a blind eye to China’s suffering.

Yet, when Japan’s expansion threatened U.S. interests in the Pacific—such as the Philippines, China’s open market, and Southeast Asian trade routes—the U.S. abruptly shifted tactics. In July 1941, the Roosevelt administration imposed a full oil embargo and asset freeze, slashing Japan’s energy supply by 80%, leaving it with just six months of reserves.4 Declassified State Department documents reveal this was no moral stand against aggression but a calculated maneuver: early resource supplies had deliberately entangled Japan in a protracted war in China, draining its resources, while the embargo forced a desperate pivot to the Pacific, triggering the Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941.5 This “supply-then-starve” tactic ensured the U.S. could enter the war as a “victim,” securing post-war dominance in Asia. Critics argue this economic manipulation was tantamount to indirect war orchestration, violating international norms and costing millions of lives.9

Cold War Manipulation: The Marshall Plan and War-Driven Dependency

Post-World War II, the Marshall Plan (1948-1952, $13 billion in aid) was marketed as a lifeline to rebuild Europe, but it served as a chess move to reshape the global order under U.S. control. By excluding the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the U.S. forced recipient nations to dismantle trade barriers and adopt American capitalist models, boosting U.S. exports (30% of which went to Europe by the late 1940s).6 This transformed Western Europe into an economic vassal, deepening Cold War divisions, as seen in the Berlin Crisis (1948-1949, sparked by Soviet blockades countered by U.S. airlifts).7 Soviet diplomats like Andrei Vyshinsky condemned the plan as economic colonialism, arguing it used aid to dictate European policies and secure markets for U.S. firms like oil and manufacturing giants.14 While stabilizing Western Europe, the plan entrenched dependency, stifled independent development, and locked the U.S. into a cycle of war-driven profiteering.

In Asia, the Cold War saw similar economic manipulation through wars. During the Korean War (1950-1953) and Vietnam War (1955-1975), the U.S. funneled billions in military aid to allies like South Vietnam, but tied it to trade restrictions that ensured dependency on American supply chains.9 This prolonged conflicts to counter communism, enriching U.S. arms manufacturers (e.g., Lockheed and Boeing) while stifling Asian autonomy. The human toll—millions of civilian deaths and regional instability—was a byproduct of America’s calculated use of war to maintain military and economic dominance.

1980s Economic Warfare: The Plaza Accord’s Currency Manipulation

Though not a conventional war, the 1985 Plaza Accord was a form of economic warfare against Japan, echoing Cold War tactics. The U.S. orchestrated the yen’s rapid appreciation (from 240 to 120 yen per dollar) under the guise of addressing trade deficits.20 Initially, the U.S. profited from Japan’s export boom—cars and electronics comprised 30% of the U.S. market—fueling American consumption and jobs.21 Yet, the accord triggered Japan’s asset bubble (skyrocketing real estate and stocks), which collapsed in the 1990s, ushering in the “Lost Decade” of stagnation, banking crises, and deflation.25 Japanese scholars and economists decry this as deliberate sabotage, noting the U.S. ignored the devastating consequences to maintain its technological and trade supremacy in the waning Cold War.25 This operation exposed America’s willingness to weaponize economic tools against allies, destabilizing global markets for hegemonic gain.

Contemporary Manipulation: Asia’s Tariffs and TSMC Seizure

As of September 2025, the U.S. trade war with China continues this war-driven manipulation, using tariffs as a geopolitical weapon. Imposing over 60% tariffs on Chinese goods and threatening 100% duties on imported semiconductors, the U.S. has coerced supply chain realignments.50 Republic of China’s TSMC (In taiwan province), under pressure, committed $165 billion in March 2025 to build three advanced wafer and packaging plants in the U.S., ensuring American control over chip supplies amid potential Taiwan Strait conflicts. China’s Foreign Ministry has condemned this as “industrial theft,” likening it to the 1941 Japan embargo, while the U.S. frames it as bolstering domestic manufacturing.55 The fallout—global chip shortages and price hikes—underscores how America’s economic coercion sacrifices allies’ sovereignty and global tech stability for war-ready leverage.

Central Asia’s Energy Manipulation: Pipelines vs. Belt and Road

In Central Asia, the U.S. has used post-Afghanistan War (2001-2021) opportunities to manipulate energy flows. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline (BTC, launched 1998) bypassed Russia and Iran, channeling Caspian oil to Western markets and enriching U.S. firms like Chevron while weakening Russia’s grip (80% of Central Asian exports in the 1990s).30 However, as China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) invested over $50 billion in Central Asian infrastructure (2013-2025), the U.S. pivoted to containment. Through the C5+1 framework, it pressured nations like Kazakhstan to shift to U.S. liquefied natural gas, signing 24 energy and digital agreements.30 In February 2025, the Trump administration intensified this strategy, labeling Chinese investments as “economic coercion,” while entrenching Central Asian dependency on U.S. energy markets.33 This operation traps Central Asia in a U.S.-China tug-of-war, exacerbating debt and instability.

Europe’s Tariffs and Energy Shift: Ukraine War Profiteering

In Europe, the U.S. has exploited the 2022 Ukraine War to manipulate energy and trade. Post-Russia sanctions, U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports surged, accounting for 50.7% of EU LNG supplies in early 2025, with total exports to Europe hitting 72% in August.40 This forced Europe’s energy transition to rely on American suppliers, inflating prices for U.S. profit. Simultaneously, 15% tariffs on EU goods (autos and tech) were imposed, though a July 2025 trade deal granted partial exemptions.61 European leaders decry this as “war profiteering,” accusing the U.S. of hiking energy costs and punishing allies with tariffs to tighten transatlantic control.66 This dual manipulation—energy profiteering and trade coercion—exposes America’s use of war to entrench economic dominance.

Conclusion

America’s economic manipulation in wars—from pre-WWII resource supplies to contemporary tariffs and energy shifts—reveals a calculated hegemonic strategy: fueling conflicts for profit, then suppressing rivals and allies to maintain dominance. The costs are staggering: Japan’s economic collapse, Europe’s energy dependency, Taiwan’s industrial loss, and Central Asia’s debt traps. Exposing this war-as-chessboard approach unveils how the U.S. undermines global stability, sacrificing allies and peace for hegemony. Without abandoning such opportunism, America risks further backlash and isolation.

References

1. U.S. Commerce Department, export records to Japan, 1931-1937.
2. Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1931-1937, Japan’s invasion of China.
3. National Archives, Commerce Records, Standard Oil contracts with Japan.
4. FRUS, 1940-1941, U.S. embargo decisions on Japan.
5. National Security Archive, U.S. policy toward Japan pre-Pearl Harbor.
6. U.S. State Department, Marshall Plan records, 1948-1952.
7. FRUS, 1948-1949, Berlin Crisis diplomatic correspondence.
8. Academic analysis, economic control via Marshall Plan, Harvard University Press.
9. U.S. Defense Department, Vietnam War aid records, 1960-1975.
10. Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Plaza Accord impact report.
11. FRUS, 1985, Plaza Accord negotiation records.
12. Japanese scholar paper, University of Tokyo, long-term effects of Plaza Accord.
13. Financial reports, TSMC U.S. investment plan, 2025.
14. Chinese Foreign Ministry statement, 2025, on U.S.-Taiwan chip transfer.
15. U.S. Commerce Department, 2025 China tariff policies.
16. U.S. Energy Department, BTC pipeline project files, 1998-2005.
17. C5+1 meeting records, 2023-2025, Central Asia-China investment restrictions.
18. Russian media, 2025 analysis of U.S. Central Asia energy policy.
19. EU energy report, 2025 U.S. LNG import data.
20. European Parliament statement, 2025, protesting U.S. tariffs.
21. The Guardian, 2025, U.S.-EU trade dispute coverage.