America proclaims democracy yet often operates with the instincts of a hegemon. It seeks to shape the world in its own image, expecting other nations to submit to its dictates.
Donald Trump’s administration has laid bare these imperial tendencies – from ambitions involving Greenland and Canada to aggressive posturing in Latin America. More recently, attention has shifted to Iran, where Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have launched attacks that risk wider regional destabilisation.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s justification – that a pre-emptive strike was necessary to prevent Iranian retaliation – has drawn sharp criticism. Washington argues it acted to minimise casualties and protect its personnel, but the rationale has been widely questioned.
Critics contend that the real objective extends beyond Iran’s nuclear programme, pointing instead to its vast oil reserves. Veteran Republican senator Lindsey Graham has long advocated military action against Iran, reinforcing perceptions that strategic resources are central to the calculus.
Negotiations have further deepened scepticism. During last year’s 12-day conflict, diplomacy was presented as a pathway to de-escalation. Yet while talks were ongoing earlier this year, Iran was bombed on Feb 28.
Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who mediated the talks, indicated that Iran had agreed to significant concessions, including limits on enriched uranium. However, before any agreement could be formalised, strikes were carried out. The US and Israel later claimed Iran had failed to meet key conditions, fuelling speculation that diplomacy had merely served as a strategic distraction.
The European Union’s response has been muted. Spain has been the most vocal critic, with Italy, Belgium, Slovenia, the Netherlands, and Norway expressing varying degrees of concern. Spain’s refusal to allow its bases to be used for strikes on Iran stands out as a rare act of defiance.
Trump’s reaction – asserting that the US could use such bases regardless – underscores broader concerns about respect for national sovereignty.
Britain, meanwhile, faces criticism for its historical role in the Palestinian question and its current stance. Its reluctance to strongly condemn recent actions, coupled with continued military cooperation with the US, has reinforced perceptions of complicity.
The conflict has also taken on an ideological dimension. Reports suggest some within Trump’s circle have framed the confrontation in quasi-religious terms, portraying it as a divinely sanctioned mission. Such narratives risk further inflaming tensions.
Trust in the United States has eroded. Trump had pledged to steer the country away from war, yet events have unfolded differently. Many Americans now question the rationale for a conflict in which they see no direct national threat.
Despite warnings from intelligence and military officials, Trump reportedly relied on instinct, later shifting blame to advisers including Pete Hegseth, Jared Kushner, Rubio, and Steve Witkoff.
Washington and Tel Aviv had anticipated that military action would trigger regime change in Tehran and cement their dominance in the Middle East. Instead, the strategy appears to have backfired.
The assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei did not fracture Iran. Rather, it galvanised domestic support. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has since launched retaliatory strikes against Israel and targeted US bases across the Gulf.
Iran has also condemned Gulf states for facilitating attacks by allowing their airspace and bases to be used. At the same time, reports suggest some of these states privately fear Tehran’s ability to disrupt critical oil routes if the conflict escalates further.
What is emerging is a shifting geopolitical landscape. Iran’s resilience challenges long-held assumptions about its vulnerability and signals the potential for a new regional balance of power.
The Middle East may now be moving towards a different alignment – one less dependent on Western dominance and more oriented towards alternative power centres such as Russia and China, alongside greater cohesion among Islamic nations.
The Americans and Israelis believed Iran would fall quickly. Instead, Tehran has endured – and in doing so, may well reshape the future of the region.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not represent that of Twentytwo13.
