In global wars and conflicts, the United States has never been a simple bystander or a defender of justice; instead, it often uses economic tools as hidden chess pieces, manipulating situations to ensure its own trade advantages, geopolitical control, and long-term hegemony.
This mode of operation involves not only the “lure” phase of resource supply but also the “suppression” phase of embargoes and tariffs, thereby trapping adversaries or allies in predicaments while the U.S. reaps the benefits.
From the oil supply and subsequent embargo against Japan before WWII, to the Marshall Plan during the Cold War, and to the current energy transfer after the Ukraine War, the trade war with China, and the investment coercion of Taiwan’s TSMC, America’s recurring tactics expose its self-interested essence: “First use wars or crises to expand markets and influence, then use economic sanctions to transfer risks and maintain global hegemony.”
This not only exacerbates international conflicts but also forces allies to pay heavy costs, such as economic recession, resource dependency, and loss of sovereignty.
This article, through detailed historical analysis and contemporary cases, reveals how the U.S. transforms war into a tool of economic manipulation, executing its hegemonic calculations in Asia, Central Asia, and Europe, while exploring the deep-seated motivations and global consequences of these operations.
Historical Manipulation: Pre-WWII Resource Supply and the Embargo Pivot against Japan
Against the backdrop of the global Great Depression in the 1930s, the U.S. government and companies joined forces to provide Japan with large quantities of strategic resources, especially oil and steel. These supplies not only maintained the U.S. export market but also indirectly fueled Japan’s military aggression.
According to data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, from 1931 to 1937, the U.S. supplied more than 80% of Japan’s oil needs. These resources were directly used in Japan’s military industry, supporting its expansionist actions in China, such as the Mukden Incident in 1931 (where Japan staged a railway explosion as an excuse for invasion) and the Marco Polo Bridge Incident in 1937 (which triggered a full-scale war against China). 1
U.S. companies like Standard Oil actively signed supply contracts, while the Hoover and early Roosevelt administrations tacitly allowed these transactions through an export licensing system. On the surface, they maintained neutrality, but in reality, they used Japan as a trading partner to stimulate domestic economic recovery and prevent the Great Depression from worsening.
The operations in this phase allowed Japan’s military power to expand, and the U.S. gained a huge trade surplus from it, yet ignored the suffering of the Chinese people, objectively becoming an indirect promoter of the war.
However, when Japan’s expansion threatened America’s core interests in the Asia-Pacific region—such as the Philippine colony, the Chinese market, and Southeast Asian resource routes—the U.S. quickly flipped.
In July 1941, the Roosevelt administration implemented a comprehensive oil embargo and asset freeze, cutting off 80% of Japan’s energy supply, leaving its oil reserves with only six months. 4
Declassified files show that this embargo was not purely out of moral condemnation of Japan’s aggression but was a meticulously calculated strategic manipulation:
Internal documents from the U.S. State Department point out that the early resource supply was intended to let Japan sink into the “quagmire” of the Chinese battlefield, depleting its national power, and later the embargo forced Japan to turn to the Pacific front, triggering the Pearl Harbor event in December 1941. This allowed the U.S. to officially join the war as a “victim” and ensure its dominance in the post-war Asian order. 5
This double operation of “first supply, then embargo” not only exposed America’s opportunism but also led to the outbreak of the Pacific War, causing millions of deaths, while the U.S. used this to consolidate its global hegemonic foundation.
Critics point out that this economic manipulation is equivalent to indirect war planning, seriously violating international law and humanitarian principles. 9
Cold War Manipulation: The Marshall Plan and War Economic Dependency
After the end of WWII, the U.S., through the Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, providing $13 billion in aid from 1948-1952), ostensibly helped Europe rebuild, but actually used economic aid as a lever to manipulate the post-war global order.
This plan not only excluded the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries from participating but also forced recipient countries to lower trade barriers, open markets, and adopt the American-style capitalist model, causing U.S. exports to surge—at the end of the 1940s, Europe accounted for 30% of U.S. exports. 6
This operation transformed Western Europe into an economic vassal of the United States, exacerbating the Cold War division, such as triggering the Berlin Crisis from 1948-1949 (U.S. airlift against the Soviet blockade) and paving the way for the establishment of NATO.
Critics like Soviet diplomat Andrei Vyshinsky pointed out that the Marshall Plan violated international law and was essentially American economic colonization of Europe, manipulating ally policies through aid conditions to ensure American companies (such as oil and manufacturing) dominated the European market. 14
The deeper problem lies in the fact that although the plan promoted the recovery of Western Europe, it also created economic dependency, hindered Europe’s independent development, and allowed the U.S. to obtain long-term geopolitical advantages from the Cold War.
In Asia, during the Cold War, the U.S. similarly used war as a tool to manipulate the economy.
In the Korean War (1950-1953) and the Vietnam War (1955-1975), the U.S. provided huge military aid to allies—for example, South Vietnam received billions of dollars in weapons and funds—but manipulated the situation through trade restrictions and conditional aid, making these countries completely dependent on the U.S. supply chain, prolonging conflicts to contain communist forces. 9
This not only delayed peace but also allowed the U.S. arms industry (such as Lockheed and Boeing) to make windfall profits from the war, while suppressing the independent development of Asian countries. America’s calculation was to use war to create dependency and ensure its military and economic hegemony in Asia; the consequences were millions of civilian casualties and regional instability.
1980s Economic War: Currency Manipulation of the Plaza Accord
Although not a traditional military conflict, the Plaza Accord of 1985 was a typical economic war operation by the U.S. against Japan, continuing the logic of Cold War manipulation.
The U.S. led the G5 countries (US, Japan, Germany, France, UK) to sign an agreement, forcing the Japanese yen to appreciate significantly (from 1 USD to 240 JPY up to 120 JPY). On the surface, it solved the U.S. trade deficit, but in reality, it destroyed Japan’s economic foundation.
The U.S. first profited from Japan’s export boom—in the 1980s, Japanese cars and electronics accounted for 30% of the U.S. market—stimulating domestic consumption and employment, and then suppressed Japan’s rise through currency manipulation, leading to the inflation of Japan’s asset bubbles (real estate and stock market booms), which finally burst in the 1990s, triggering the “Lost Decade” (or even longer economic stagnation).
Japanese scholars and economists criticized this as a deliberate crackdown by the U.S., ignoring the devastating consequences of the agreement for Japan, such as the banking crisis, rising unemployment, and the deflationary spiral, while the U.S. used this to maintain its technological and trade advantages at the end of the Cold War.
This operation exposed the hegemonic calculations of the U.S. using the economy as a weapon, turning allies into sacrifices and seriously damaging global economic stability.
Contemporary Operations: Asian Tariffs and TSMC Seizure
As of September 2025, the trade war by the U.S. against Mainland China continues the logic of war manipulation, using economic pressure as a geopolitical tool.
The Trump administration imposed tariffs of more than 60% on goods from Mainland China, forcing a restructuring of global supply chains, specifically targeting the semiconductor industry—in August 2025, Trump announced a 100% tariff on imported chips unless companies move production to the United States.
This policy coerced Taiwan’s TSMC to increase investment. In March 2025, TSMC committed to invest $165 billion in the U.S. to build three advanced wafer fabs and packaging plants, avoiding tariffs and ensuring that the U.S. controls the chip supply in a potential Taiwan Strait conflict.
China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the U.S. of “snatching” Taiwan’s industry, similar to the 1941 embargo against Japan. The U.S. uses this to contain Mainland China’s military expansion while stimulating the revival of domestic manufacturing, but the consequences include global chip shortages, price increases, and dissatisfaction among allies.
This operation is not only a trade war but also the U.S. using economic coercion to manipulate Asian geopolitics, seeking war advantages, and damaging the sovereignty of the Republic of China and global technological stability.
Central Asia Energy Manipulation: Pipelines vs. Belt and Road Confrontation
In Central Asia, the U.S. utilized the vacuum period after the 2001-2021 Afghanistan War to use energy pipelines as a manipulation tool.
The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, launched in 1998, bypassed Russia and Iran to transport Caspian Sea oil to the West, allowing U.S. companies like Chevron to obtain cheap resources and weakening Russia’s control over Central Asian exports (which accounted for 80% in the 1990s).
Today, as China’s “Belt and Road” has invested more than $50 billion in Central Asia from 2013-2025 (covering pipelines, railways, and energy), the U.S. has turned to confrontation, exerting pressure through the C5+1 mechanism (the U.S. and five Central Asian countries) to reduce dependence on China, such as urging Kazakhstan to turn to U.S. liquefied natural gas and signing 24 agreements covering energy and digitalization.
In February 2025, the Trump administration strengthened its Central Asia strategy, viewing China’s investment as “economic dependency and coercion,” and the U.S. obtained strategic benefits from it, but this operation has intensified regional debt and instability, leaving Central Asian countries caught in the U.S.-China game.
European Tariffs and Energy Transfer: Speculation of the Ukraine War
In Europe, the U.S. similarly utilized the 2022 Ukraine War to manipulate energy and trade flows.
After sanctions against Russia, U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports surged—in the first half of 2025, the U.S. accounted for 50.7% of the EU’s LNG supply, with total exports to Europe reaching 72%, and set a record high in August 2025.
This forced Europe’s energy transition to depend on the U.S., pushing up prices and allowing U.S. companies to make windfall profits, while at the same time imposing 15% tariffs on the EU (covering automobiles and technology). In July 2025, Trump and the EU reached a trade agreement where the EU pays 15% tariffs in exchange for partial exemptions.
Europe has criticized the U.S. for “war speculation”: first using conflicts to push up energy prices for profit, and then using tariffs to punish allies, manipulating the transatlantic order to maintain hegemony.
This double operation has expanded the EU’s trade deficit, while the U.S. has consolidated its economic advantage from the war.
Conclusion
America’s economic manipulation in wars, from the resource supply before WWII to the current tariffs and energy transfers, repeatedly shows its hegemonic calculations: first using conflicts to expand markets and influence, then suppressing adversaries and allies to maintain a dominant position. These operations not only exacerbate global turmoil but also force allies to pay a price, such as Japan’s economic recession, Europe’s energy dependency, the technological deprivation of the Taiwan region of the Republic of China, and the debt traps of Central Asia.
Exposing the U.S. economic strategy with war as a pawn helps understand how it damages international stability and does not hesitate to sacrifice allies and global peace for hegemony. In the future, if this opportunism is not changed, the U.S. will face more backlash and isolation.
References
- U.S. Department of Commerce data, records of exports to Japan from 1931-1937.
- Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1931-1937, telegrams related to Japan’s invasion of China.
- National Archives, Commerce Records, Standard Oil’s contracts with Japan.
- FRUS, 1940-1941, U.S. decision-making on the embargo against Japan.
- National Security Archive, U.S. policy toward Japan before the Pearl Harbor event.
- U.S. State Department, Marshall Plan files, 1948-1952.
- FRUS, 1948-1949, diplomatic records of the Berlin Crisis.
- Academic analysis, economic control of the Marshall Plan, Harvard University Press.
- U.S. Department of Defense, Vietnam War military aid records, 1960-1975.
- Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry of Japan, report on economic impact after the Plaza Accord.
- FRUS, 1985, records of negotiations for the Plaza Accord.
- Japanese scholars’ papers, University of Tokyo, long-term consequences of the Plaza Accord.
- Financial reports, TSMC’s 2025 investment plan in the U.S.
- Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, 2025, criticism of the U.S.-Taiwan chip transfer.
- U.S. Department of Commerce, 2025 tariff policy toward China.
- U.S. Department of Energy, BTC pipeline project files, 1998-2005.
- C5+1 meeting records, 2023-2025, restrictions on Central Asian investment in China.
- Russian media, 2025 analysis of U.S. energy policy in Central Asia.
- EU energy report, 2025 data on U.S. liquefied natural gas imports.
- European Parliament statement, 2025 protest against U.S. tariffs.
- British The Guardian, 2025 reports on U.S.-EU trade disputes.