If we were arguing about how, idk, US economic policy has shaped US foreign policy, then perhaps all your detailed information would be important. The last 7 years are explainable in hindsight. Looking backward in 2016 would not have been much use in figuring out what was to come. Looking back at Hamas actions between 2010 and 2022 would not have helped head off Oct 7, 2023. Why we do things is important and mostly not part of the conversation.
Economic policy usually serves foreign policy, more than the other way around. In details, against weaker states, economic exploitation is possible backed by foreign policy (threats or outright intervention).
But against peer states, economis is used as one of the tools of inter-state competition. It does not command its dynamics. If it did then the theories that WW I was impossible because of so much trade between the future beliigerents would have held true.
Economic possibilities also
limit foreign policy, in that empires are very expensive to maintain, the military cost is huge. The British Empire was nearly bankrupted after WW I. It still took ground after it, but had to let the saudis take Arabia because Churchill coudn't find the funds or the justification for an expedition to back the Hashemite there. It didn't tear what is now Turkey down to pieces for the same motive, no funds.
After WW2 the arrangement imposed by Roosevelt's team on the british at Bretton Woods killed the British Empire, sealed their inability to cling to India. Smaller anti-colonial uprisings across the remnants of the empire inevitably ended with british widrawal even where they could win some military fights - the cost of continued occupation was too high. The foreign policy estabelishment in London even had its own ministries for the colonies.
The jobs of those people, and the jobs of a huge caste of officers of the british armed forces, depended on the continuation of the Empire. But when the economy ceased being able to maintain it, these had to find something else to do and cease living from - pardon me,
serve - the state.
The current county with hegemonic pretensions is overspending like the british were doing after WW1. Has been since Vietnam at least. It's all on the back of the exhorbitant privelege of the rest of the world buying dollars, effectively sustaining the deficits that the huge US military spending require of its government. I think that the receivers of the attentions of that machine have by now understood this and are reacting to it.
So far, and since the 1970s,
US economic policy has been chosen to serve its foreign policy estabelishment. The promotion of the dollar as international currency, the move out of gold-convertible settlements and to floating exchange rates, the whole neo-liberal "Washington consensus" stemming from it, including the "liberalization" of international finance - these were born of an expedient as the only possible way for the US to continue to spend so much on its military. Economists pretend this just happened, or was the result of some liberal teleology. No, it was a political choice. And one made to serve the needs of a political caste at the time. It has served this caste well for 50 years, they and their descendants are still in place, still earning their wages
serving the state, and have even found new sources of income in a more promiscuous private-public environment.
en.wikipedia.org
