U.S. struggles to steer allies' wars without clear strategy or early leverage

A recent analysis argues that Washington’s pattern of backing allies in conflicts—from Yemen to Ukraine—fails to shape outcomes because it delays using its leverage and lacks unified goals.

Drawing on data from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program and interviews with more than 30 senior U.S. officials, the analysis highlights a historic pattern: most wars lack clear endings, and the longer they drag on, the harder settlements become. From 2010 to 2025 Washington expanded annual security assistance from $15 billion to $46 billion, channeling most of the firepower and intelligence to partners in Yemen, Ukraine and Israel’s Gaza campaign.

In each case, early U.S. leverage was underused, as political pressure to provide unconditional support discouraged demanding strategic concessions. This delay coincided with declining domestic backing, especially after civilian casualties in Yemen and Gaza, limiting congressional willingness to fund aid. Fragmented bureaucratic responsibilities and limited on-the-ground engagement further hampered Washington’s ability to influence allies’ tactics or negotiate peace. The author recommends that the United States demand joint strategic plans at the outset, tie assistance to compliance with humanitarian law, and coordinate a single, coherent policy across agencies to retain influence over allied conflicts.