It is hard to see the US system seizing its own assets to donate to the targets of US aggression in a comparable way. But for the sake of argument - impartial it may be, but it doesn't seem like the type of impartiality that is appealing to foreigners. If China goes for Taiwan they'll lose all their US assets for example; I doubt that sits well with them.
Business doesn't like things like wars of conquest where the legal system your factories operate under, your workers and the factories all seized by force or blown up when someone artillery strikes the town they're in to the ground.
The whole point of being a reserve currency is to be stable and a key part of that is also enforcing stability - which the US does through things like it's naval supremacy.
"Don't invade fellow democracies" is a pretty easy set of rules to play by, and is appealing to every country which would like not to be invaded - which is to say, economically doing business with the US is a very good deal if it means the US has your back if someone does look like they want to invade you.
This entire concept is one of the ideas currently being used to try and keep China in check, and it was presumed in Europe that this was what would keep Russia in check (and the failure of that assumption is now the cause of the huge uptick in orders for US military equipment - so even there, the US is doing well out of the policy).
But the US is a conglemeration of interests, and if you are businessman, an investor, a Capitalist, your interests are the US interests. If you actually understand what guides US foreign policy it's actually very easy to align yourself with US interests in a beneficial way without much costs. To become an "insider". There is no such thing as "unprovoked US aggression", it's all quite predictable decades ahead from certain actions performed today. The US is predictable, and that makes it easy to invest in.
China, Iran, Russia, NK, Cuba etc instead are still guided by nationalist impulses, which unfortunately can result in irrational decisions (Ukraine, Taiwan) that are unalignable with business interests. It's a matter of pride really, and that's a big no-no for the investor. It's unpredictable, we don't know if China will really invade Taiwan or not, and that's going to put a major cost in investing. As for other places like India or the EU, their economies aren't large enough and have good enough returns yet, but even if they did, they would likely operate in a similar manner as the US.
China are, in a disturbingly literal sense, doing dress rehearsals for a Taiwan invasion. As far as I know (not speaking Chinese) their rhetoric has been quite clear that they see military invasion as an option on this topic. They're probably going to be a US-calibre military superpower in short order given their economic and manufacturing foundations.
I doubt your answer will make a compelling case to their ears.
> There is no such thing as "unprovoked US aggression", it's all quite predictable decades ahead
That is suspect:
* It almost rejects the entire concept of unprovoked aggression. Although de-facto it is, damaging or obstructing the US's commercial interests isn't supposed to be considered a military provocation.
* It is at odds with a country like the US that is continuously in a state of conflict because of their commercial interests. On balance they're probably the most militarily aggressive country in existence right now. That is a lot of implicit provocation!
> China, Iran, Russia, NK, Cuba etc instead are still guided by nationalist impulses, which unfortunately can result in irrational decisions (Ukraine, Taiwan)
I can't resist a jab at this one. Thank goodness the rationalists prevailed on topics like Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to glorious success, prosperity and other good outcomes!
Seems like that’s crumbling, to the point it’s concerning even to me.
