Back in the early 1920s, Antun Sa'adeh wrote an article entitled “The Fall of the United States from the Standards of Universal Morality.” In it, he noted: “The world had hoped that America would serve as a conduit for political and ethical dialogue and comprehension between East and West. Alas, these expectations were gravely let down by the Americans. Once considered a friend by the East, they now view the United States as no different from other Western nations that delight in dominating and enslaving other peoples and lands.”
Today, the United States, under President Donald Trump, is stooping to a new low as it enters a markedly contentious phase in its foreign policy conduct. Its posture toward the Middle East is increasingly framed in terms of confrontation, often justified by arguments that lack persuasive substantiation and are presented as grounds for exerting control over Iranian oil resources. Such claims, however, warrant critical scrutiny. The emphasis on oil, while not irrelevant, represents only a limited component of the broader strategic calculus guiding American foreign policy.
In practical terms, a significant proportion of Iranian oil exports is directed toward Asian markets, particularly China. This distribution pattern complicates the assertion that Iran constitutes a direct or substantial threat to the United States energy security. Consequently, it is more analytically sound to interpret American actions within a wider geopolitical framework, in which considerations such as regional influence, strategic containment, and global power competition play a more decisive role than the narrowly defined objective of securing access to oil resources.
The foreign policy posture of the United States has increasingly been characterized by charges of inconsistency. Official justifications for potential or actual military action against Iran frequently emphasize the imperative of preventing nuclear proliferation. However, this rationale invites critical examination when considered alongside the longstanding ambiguity surrounding the nuclear capabilities of Israel, which has not been subjected to equivalent levels of scrutiny or pressure.
A similar asymmetry emerges in discussions of missile capabilities. Concerns over Iran’s missile program are often framed in terms of security threats, yet the operational range of these systems does not pose a direct risk to the continental United States. This raises questions regarding the proportionality and consistency of such concerns, particularly when contrasted with the comparatively limited attention afforded to Israel’s own missile arsenal. Taken together, these disparities suggest that the stated objectives of non-proliferation and regional stability may be selectively applied, reflecting broader strategic priorities rather than universally enforced principles.
Contemporary critiques of United States foreign policy increasingly emphasize perceived inconsistencies between its professed commitment to international norms and its actual conduct. In particular, its withdrawal from, or selective adherence to, international agreements has been interpreted as indicative of a broader erosion of normative consistency in its external engagements. Such patterns have led some observers to argue that the United States applies standards of international legality and moral responsibility in a manner that appears uneven or instrumental.
Within this interpretive framework, American behaviour is often situated within a longer historical continuum of great-power politics, bearing certain resemblances to the practices historically associated with nineteenth-century European imperial powers. From this perspective, its actions may be understood less as deviations from precedent than as manifestations of enduring dynamics of power projection, strategic dominance, and the prioritization of national interests within the international system.
Indeed, the United States has become a very hypocritical nation. In 1924, it fell from the standards of universal morality by endorsing the French mandate over Syria and the Balfour Declaration in Palestine. Today, it is falling from the same standards yet again by attacking the East on flimsy grounds that appease only its ally, the Zionist state.
