But since the Soviet Union fell the United States has been backing away from the role of maintaining peace and trade.
After the Soviet Union fell, the U.S. government has effectively been owned by competing Islamic factions -- between the Sunnis (the Bush/Cheney/McCain cabal) and the Shi'ites (the Democrats).
As to Suez, the United States was trying to disassemble the imperial system that had given us world wars one and two. The fact that the Soviet Union benefited from free trade had nothing to do with relations. It wasn’t friendly. The US and the Soviets were fighting a cold war. Their subs followed our ships, and our subs followed their subs. Sometimes they ran into each other. You can’t mistake the lack of kinetic action as being “friendly.” We weren’t. The wars were being fought as proxy wars as each side tried to influence rather than invade.
As to being owned by the Muslim world, there is rarely any serious US firepower in the Middle East. We have turned our attention to the next threat, China. Except for a few people here and there we have fewer troops abroad since the 1920’s. The Muslim world is desperately seeking a new friend to protect them from each other; the Iranians, the Turks, and a host of powerful, well-funded non-state actors. That’s why they are trying to make a deal with Israel and THAT is the genesis of the present war with HAMAS.
Incidentally, it would appear that we are heading back to mercantilism and a new version of the imperial system. That’s what’s going on with all the sudden African revolts. Russia is in play against French and British influence so the Russians can deny African oil from Europe.
It’s a complicated chessboard. The perfect game for a president who can’t navigate stairs.